Does Society Need a Lower Class? - Page 2

Master Zen · March 3, 2003, 12:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Social prestige is an attribute of a society. For example, in anicent China, mandarians were of the highest status and merchants were of the lowest. Some other societies regarded warriors as the highest.

Even in a Western society, how the various professions rank with each other is a matter of great controvery.

Neo-classical economic theory stipulates that the pay received by the n-th worker is equivalent to the marginal benefit that he brings to the firm.

There are studies that show that high-pay professions like professional athletes are actually underpaid

when taking into account the benefits received by the franchise. Sounds crazy doesn't it?

Master Zen · March 3, 2003, 13:00

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX

first the mexicans, now the space monkies?

[kidding, i assure you. i have no problem with people comming to america to work. it's when they come to blow sh*t up that i flip out]

Read my avatar message!!

Inverse Icarus · March 3, 2003, 13:03

DuncanK · March 3, 2003, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I misread the topic.

In any case some people just lack the necessary skills and brainpower to do anything meaningful with their lives. Unless we have some magical way of supporting these people, then they will have to work for a living. If we can't find anything for them to do- then who will support them?

I agree. It's not democratic but it seems to be the only way that works. Your aptitude should be determined ealry in live and you should be encouraged to go into a profession where you can do the most good. Look at the way things are now. We are so PC that we tell our kids that they can be anything they want. Most of us can't. Including me. That's why I got a degree in Economics and not Physics.

DuncanK · March 3, 2003, 13:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Social prestige is an attribute of a society. For example, in anicent China, mandarians were of the highest status and merchants were of the lowest. Some other societies regarded warriors as the highest.

Even in a Western society, how the various professions rank with each other is a matter of great controvery.

In Western society the business man who has the most power and does the least work holds the highest prestige.

Imran Siddiqui · March 3, 2003, 13:42

Quote:

In Western society the business man who has the most power and does the least work holds the highest prestige.

Or so the left would have you believe

It ain't like CEOs work a Hell of lot and put in more hours than the workers in the factory or anything

DuncanK · March 3, 2003, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

In Western society the business man who has the most power and does the least work holds the highest prestige.

Or so the left would have you believe

It ain't like CEOs work a Hell of lot and put in more hours than the workers in the factory or anything

Poppycock, CEOs don't do anything but order people around. Most of the time they do that on the golf course with a cell phone in their hand.

Imran Siddiqui · March 3, 2003, 13:47

Yep... go on with your lefty fantasies, bolstered by the great truth of Hollywood.

DuncanK · March 3, 2003, 13:56

Imran,

People with money look down on people who work. If a CEO worked he would lose the respect of his investors.

Imran Siddiqui · March 3, 2003, 14:02

Another untrue generalization? Geez, Duncan, you are on a roll!!

The only people that look down on people who work are those born with money.

You think investors look down on Bill Gates because he works harder than anyone working for him? BULLSHIT!

DuncanK · March 3, 2003, 14:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Another untrue generalization? Geez, Duncan, you are on a roll!!

The only people that look down on people who work are those born with money.

You think investors look down on Bill Gates because he works harder than anyone working for him? BULLSHIT!

Gates doesn't do **** and work is not respected in this country, power is. Gates has lots of power.

DuncanK · March 3, 2003, 14:15

People who work are powerless, otherwise why would they do it. Bill Gates gets other people to work for him, because he has the power to do that. That's why he is respected.

Ben Kenobi · March 3, 2003, 14:16

Quote:

Your aptitude should be determined ealry in live and you should be encouraged to go into a profession where you can do the most good.

Doesn't work all that well. Where would you set the cutoff? Junior High?

People often change aptitudes, some quite late in life. Are we to discourage those who wish to improve their condition simply because they did not start there.

BTW DuncanK, I sympathise with your switch from Physics to Economics. I found I lacked the mathematics skill to keep up with my physics peers.

While I've found out some of my limitations, I'm glad that I received an opportunity to try.

How would one determine aptitude, DuncanK?

DuncanK · March 3, 2003, 14:24

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18

Doesn't work all that well. Where would you set the cutoff? Junior High?

People often change aptitudes, some quite late in life. Are we to discourage those who wish to improve their condition simply because they did not start there.

BTW DuncanK, I sympathise with your switch from Physics to Economics. I found I lacked the mathematics skill to keep up with my physics peers.

While I've found out some of my limitations, I'm glad that I received an opportunity to try.

How would one determine aptitude, DuncanK?

Yes, junior high. By junior high it can be determined if a student has aptitude in certain areas like scientic reasoning or math. This is much more efficient for the individual and society. Some people think it's nice to have the opportunity to fail, but I think it's better to be pointed in the right direction. This gives you confidence, because you have the opinion of society behind you.

If we did that, we would also have to be more dedicated to making sure that everyone had a job though, because those who make the decisions have to take the responsibility.

Master Zen · March 3, 2003, 18:49

Don't want to sound too pro-CEO, but at least some of them started at least with a creative spark which led them to their position of power.

We might hate Bill Gates, but he started slogging it just like any other programmer of his day. Whether it be ability or luck that made Microsoft the way it is now I don't know, but I would not go so far as to blast on the CEOs of ALL firms (granted, I hate familiy-owned business becuase ownership is not based on aptitude but on blood).

If I ever start a major company through hard work I would love to spend my days playing golf and giving orders. After all, if what I did was so meaningless, why didn't someone do it before???

Kramerman · March 3, 2003, 19:09

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

Yes, junior high. By junior high it can be determined if a student has aptitude in certain areas like scientic reasoning or math. This is much more efficient for the individual and society. Some people think it's nice to have the opportunity to fail, but I think it's better to be pointed in the right direction. This gives you confidence, because you have the opinion of society behind you.

If we did that, we would also have to be more dedicated to making sure that everyone had a job though, because those who make the decisions have to take the responsibility.

I couldnt disagree more. I have aptitude in verbal skills, slightly (just barely, at least according to the SAT) more so than my mathmatics skills. However, i detest English, and if i were forced to be an english major (or related), just cause im good at it, i would go on a bloody rampage. People should have the choice to do what they love... this is usually what people are good at (maybe not what they are best at, but good at) anyway. Im not the best in math, but I wish to become an engineer. If i have the sjills to hack it, as tested through Uni, then i am more than fit to be an engineer

Kman

PeteH · March 3, 2003, 19:22

"Civilization originates on conquest abroad and repression at home." - Stanley Diamond in "In Search of the Primitive "

As has been said earlier, class structures are a symptom of civilization.

DuncanK · March 3, 2003, 19:26

Quote:

Originally posted by PeteH
"Civilization originates on conquest abroad and repression at home." - Stanley Diamond in "In Search of the Primitive "

As has been said earlier, class structures are a symptom of civilization.

Depends on what you consider civilized.

Oerdin · March 3, 2003, 19:50

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
in capitialism, yes.

when one has more another has less.

That's not true at all. If you grow the pie then everyone gets a bigger piece.

Jon Shafer · March 3, 2003, 20:02

But the way that modern economics work is that some pieces are bigger than others, and over time the world gets hungrier. The actual size of the pieces is irrelevant.

Spiffor · March 3, 2003, 20:04

As Trip pointed out, the "lower-classes" (i.e people who have an uninteresting job) are a direct consequence of the division of labour. It is more efficient to have a doctor practicing all day, rather than wasting time building clumsily his house, or unefficiently looking for his food (and thus let professionals do these menial jobs). It is a radical difference with hunter-gatherer societies and medieval village communities.

Trip, if you're interested with labour division, you should check Emile Durkheim's work (sociologist from late 18th century), even though he's mostly concerned with social relationships rather than the economy.
Also, there is a sociologic school who basically says "this phenomen happens because it must happen, because it serves a function in the society". This sociologic school is called Functionalism.

Ben Kenobi · March 3, 2003, 20:06

Quote:

How would one determine aptitude, DuncanK?

DuncanK:

You missed one question.

DuncanK · March 3, 2003, 20:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

That's not true at all. If you grow the pie then everyone gets a bigger piece.

Pies don't grow.

Imran Siddiqui · March 3, 2003, 20:10

LOL, and you are 'studying' economics?

So the GDP today is the same as it was in 1500?

Zero · March 3, 2003, 20:17

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX

first the mexicans, now the space monkies?

[kidding, i assure you. i have no problem with people comming to america to work. it's when they come to blow sh*t up that i flip out]

no i think you didnt get me. During the first two pages of thread people kept saying "until robots do all our work", over and over again as if robots that did our work existed there would be no lower class. The point is that There still will be a lower class. And it doesnt have to be human..... it can be the space monkeys that cross our galactic border and live on our planet as an illegal alien... You can interpret the word, alien in both ways!

Master Zen · March 3, 2003, 23:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
LOL, and you are 'studying' economics?

So the GDP today is the same as it was in 1500?

In many cases though, there are more people taking a bite too.

DuncanK · March 3, 2003, 23:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So the GDP today is the same as it was in 1500?

The economy is not a pie, or maybe you thought is was.

DuncanK · March 3, 2003, 23:50

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18

DuncanK:

You missed one question.

I said that you can test for it.

Sikander · March 3, 2003, 23:54

Are you talking about a corse, smelly, rude, violent lower class, or a loyal, thrifty, trustworthy, dedicated, inexpensive labor source lower class?

ciaran · March 4, 2003, 00:25

Even if there were a bigger pie, the rich would not necessarily be inclined to share it with everyone else simply because it is bigger. Wanting has no end and there seems to be no reason to share what's extra with the poor, unless niceness is a reason-- which it is not. Doesn't matter if we had over one million percent in extra goods and services. Society still requires a lower class because someone needs to pick up the trash and clean up our... mess(es). No amount of money--at least in present day--will provide us with a robot that can perform the functions necessary of a janitor or a robot that will have (cheap) sex for money.

The wishful thinking of a future with robots brings up this interesting point: if you had a robot that could function as a human, then you would be dealing with an intellect that effectively does so as well (function as a human). A lower class, like someone above told me, is one that is looked upon as serving a purpose regardless of how they feel about it. This would not be dissimilar to how we feel about robots (at least currently) and what sort of services we could enjoy out of them (even though no one likes to clean a toilet).

Lastly, there is the element of human desire. Personally, I would never have robot servants. I would have human ones that I could either see visibly suffer, or sexually molest on a regular basis. Why? Because power is great, and no amount of robotic or space-monkey service would be enough to convince me otherwise. Society always needs a lower class because if we did not, there would be a vast chunk of our species that would do nothing because they have no specialised skills (which would be hopelessly beyond their maximum). Today, we have a system of slavery that is virtually no different than what we had in the deep South. Do you honestly think that earning minimum wage amounts to any degree of social or political power? Do you think that earning "six figures" amounts to any of these? Those who are raking in billions would have to disagree. We know that they would be right.

ciaran