Anyone that really thinks the USA has no caste is in an upper level caste. It's less formalized here than in other countries, but it absolutely exists.
Class mobility is celebrated, so much so that the successful often play-up any humble origins in their families.
We’re right to celebrate people from humble origins climbing the social ladder. But it doesn’t happen anywhere near as often as it should.
If you want to talk about social mobility, we can talk about that as a separate topic.
What does ideal social mobility look like to you? Here is a baseline for discussion:
https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/...
Subtle bias against the lower classes is absolutely alive and well in the west. We just don't talk about it, or consciously notice it a lot of the time. People who grew up in poor areas, or who didn't go to good schools just "don't seem like one of us" or fail "culture fit" interviews.
Social class objectively exists, but I think it is disingenuous to say class bias has an impact anywhere close to that of the caste system on life outcomes, or deterministically dictates economic outcomes.
There is a loose correlation between class and outcomes, but this also includes perfectly logical factors like better educational attainment, parental nurturing, support, crime, and drug use.
> There is a loose correlation between class and outcomes,
My understanding is that the correlation is very strong.
> but this also includes perfectly logical factors like better educational attainment, parental nurturing, support, crime, and drug use.
The right question is about social mobility. If you're born in a poor family, what is the chance that you'll escape poverty yourself? The numbers are pretty damning. In the USA today, a child in the bottom 20% of the income distribution only has a 7% chance to ever reach the top 20% of the income distribution. Poor people stay uneducated and poor.
And yes, its for "logical" reasons like crime, nurturing, etc. But that doesn't make it fair or right. From a purely selfish perspective, if tomorrow's Einstein is born poor in america today, its very unlikely they will ever be able to make use of their talent to aid the world.
Caste systems teach people that this lack of social mobility should be preserved - and thats abhorrent. But if we look at outcomes rather than beliefs, it doesn't really matter why people from poor families are prevented from reaching their potential. Its in all of our best interest to fight that battle.
The economist put out a great primer video on this a few months ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1FdIvLg6i4
Look at the table that I shared. A very strong correlation would look like:
Bottom 20% > bottom 20% = 100%
Next 20% > Next 20% = 100%
....
Top 20% > top 20% = 100%
Bottom 20% > bottom 20% = 20%
Next 20% > Next 20% = 20%
....
Top 20% > top 20% = 20%
>In the USA today, a child in the bottom 20% of the income distribution only has a 7% chance to ever reach the top 20% of the income distribution.
What do you think that 7% would be in an ideal world? 7% sounds small, but keep in mind that in a system where birth class had no impact whatsoever, 7% would become 3x higher to 20%. Also, keep in mind that this is the absolute worst case for all of USA and a tiny part of the big picture. E.g. the most capable 20% of the bottom 20% don't make it all the way to where they would under a fair system 60% of the time (this is about 2% of the population). Most people (numerically) have very little impact from class.
>From a purely selfish perspective, if tomorrow's Einstein is born poor in america today, its very unlikely they will ever be able to make use of their talent to aid the world.
This is hyperbolic. If they were born in the bottom 20%, and not part of the majority that bottom 20% that escape poverty, maybe. Keep in mind that the real Einstein was born into the 1% in Germany, son of a factory owner, not a chimney sweep.
>Poor people stay uneducated and poor.
This is objectively not true. Most people born in the bottom quintile escape the bottom quintile, as demonstrated by the data.
I agree that more should be done to help those borne into poverty, but this fatalistic attitude does not match reality. There are some noteworthy effects of birth class, primarily in the most extreme situations, but most Americans are unaffected. For those borne into poverty, we know what factors generally increase mobility. If you stay in school, off of drugs, and keep a clean criminal record, chances are very likely you will escape the bottom quintile. I think more effort should go into helping people do these simple things, and less effort should be spent spreading the idea that outcomes are determined by birth.
We should be treating people as individuals, not collectives. Anything less is profoundly immoral.
An american rags to riches mythos and a small and decreasing class mobility asymptotically trending to zero looks more like caste than not.
India also has a dalit president.
America hasnt had a president of modest income since Truman.
Edit: but as many other folks are mentioning, this is class and not caste. You'll notice that around half of the things I've mentioned are something you're born with.
That has literally never happened to me.