This week we’re discussing the first three chapters, or Part One of the book.
Next week we’ll talk about chapters 4, 5 and 6.
This week, let’s talk about part one, the crux of which I think is in this line right here:
American meritocracy has become exactly what it was intended to combat: a mechanism for the concentration and dynastic transmission of wealth, privilege and caste across generations.
I also thought this idea was also really interesting
Rising inequality is not driven principally by villains, and moralistic attacks on bad actors neglect morally complex but vastly more consequential structural wrongs.
What did you think about these first three chapters and the ideas in them?
Arguments need to be based on facts that build to a clear conclusion. The author creates nebulous pseudoscientific terms and uses anecdotes from towns in the rust belt to justify his conclusions. His conclusions are based on his personal experiences. There's no data here and I frankly think his ideas are poorly formed and his writing is terrible. My wife, at a major financial newspaper, spent her editing time turning jargon into plain English. "Superordinate in the Meritocratic system." This is BS.
So I'm only a few pages into chapter 2, but so far, I think it's a "bad" book because it is looking at past American prosperity through a very narrow white male Post WWII lens. "Things used to be great for America, and now it's not because of _take_your_pick_of_evil" is a boring trope.
There is an excellent episode of Adam Ruins Everything, where he talks about how the middle class built of the Post-WWII manufacturing sector is an economic anamoly, and building all of our "we'll get better if we go back to our manufacturing roots" is useless. https://adam-ruins-everything.fandom.com/wiki/Adam_Ruins_The_Economy
The arguments that are made about the leisure class being replaced by a class that extols how much it works to be very interesting.
Overall, so far I see that our society, perhaps, is at an inevitable point on its path of capitalism/meritocracy. Why, however, do we have different levels of income inequality than other developed nations? Simply more capitalism?
Well............this may be the worst book I have read in the last 10 years..........and thus I have returned to Amazon for a refund. Looking forward (I think) to the next book.
Okay, I'm really trying. But on page 62, he talks about colleges and universities embracing black, or female, or gay identies, but denying "middle class identities". It's just too much. It implies that those other groups are not part of the mainstream middle class identity, and smacks of "it's so hard to be a white man these days"
As a data nerd, and someone who is considered an elite or superordinate in the Meritocratic system described, I find the take on the idea of the return on time really interesting. I very often think of myself in these terms - the things worth my time in terms of financial return. Wonder if others think the same way.
Another thought I had was his take on education. I think he missed the mark on this as well. Historically, the "Ivy League" schools have been for the aristocracy. I believe the aristocracy has figured out how to game the meritocracy "trap" to keep them at the higher levels. Yes, there are students there who are killing themselves to get in on higher and higher merits. Let's not forget, however that Felicity Huffman is serving (served?) jail time and Lori "Aunt Becky" Loughlin is on her way to jail (along with other aristocrats) for "buying" meritocracy for their children. So it isn't wholly earned as the author wants to portray. And I didn't recall him even referring to the children who get in through the "legal" large donations of the parents to these same elite schools and not by merit.
Another thought I had was his take on education. I think he missed the mark on this as well. Historically, the "Ivy League" schools have been for the aristocracy. I believe the aristocracy has figured out how to game the meritocracy "trap" to keep them at the higher levels. Yes, there are students there who are killing themselves to get in on higher and higher merits. Let's not forget, however that Felicity Huffman is serving (served?) jail time and Lori "Aunt Becky" Loughlin is on her way to jail (along with other aristocrats) for "buying" meritocracy for their children. So it isn't wholly earned as the author wants to portray. And I didn't recall him even referring to the children who get in through the "legal" large donations to these same elite schools and not by merit.
I've gotten through Chapter 2 and while I think there is some credence to what the author is saying, I don't think it is nearly as dire as how the author is portraying it. Specifically how he is cherry picking anecdotes from St. Clair Shores, MI. Full disclosure, I am born, bread, and raised in the metro Detroit area, sans a few years when I lived in West Michigan and East Texas. I challenge anyone to pull up a map of the metro Detroit region to be able to distinguish any of the suburban cities from one another as they all run together on a map...similar to most metro areas.
St. Clair Shores (like Berkley, MI; and Royal Oak, MI; and Ferndale, MI; and Clarkston, MI; and...) is not an area where you are going to find big business or industry. They are bedroom and/or starter communities where people live and go to work in other areas in the Detroit areas (aka, Dearborn, MI; Warren, MI; Auburn Hills, MI; Farmington Hills, MI; and so on) as they climb the ladders of success. I have friends who live and have lived in St. Clair Shores, specifically. While, yes, there are some people there as described by the author, more than not, this is an area where this is someone's weekday and "winter" home. They have 2nd "retirement" homes up north or a boat they basically live on every weekend during the spring, summer, and fall. They didn't give Michigan the nickname the Great Lake State for nothing.
BTW Ronnie Lott is one of the greatest warriors in football history period! Only perhaps topped by Jack Youngblood who played in the playoffs, Super Bowl & Pro Bowl with a broken leg.
Tending to agree with the ideas being presented in the first three chapters. Things that really stuck out for me were the erosion of opportunity for the Middle Class and the extreme burnout rate for people after they have finally moved up to a job they thought would be more enjoyable or at least make their life better. Also the statement "the rich and the rest now work, marry, parent, socialize, read, eat and even worship differently" really hit home with how things have become more times than not in everyday life. Finally I really found his breakdown on Trump and why people voted for him to be spot on in many cases. Though I will say it still took a perfect storm of sorts for him to win the election.
Arguments need to be based on facts that build to a clear conclusion. The author creates nebulous pseudoscientific terms and uses anecdotes from towns in the rust belt to justify his conclusions. His conclusions are based on his personal experiences. There's no data here and I frankly think his ideas are poorly formed and his writing is terrible. My wife, at a major financial newspaper, spent her editing time turning jargon into plain English. "Superordinate in the Meritocratic system." This is BS.
So I'm only a few pages into chapter 2, but so far, I think it's a "bad" book because it is looking at past American prosperity through a very narrow white male Post WWII lens. "Things used to be great for America, and now it's not because of _take_your_pick_of_evil" is a boring trope.
There is an excellent episode of Adam Ruins Everything, where he talks about how the middle class built of the Post-WWII manufacturing sector is an economic anamoly, and building all of our "we'll get better if we go back to our manufacturing roots" is useless. https://adam-ruins-everything.fandom.com/wiki/Adam_Ruins_The_Economy
The arguments that are made about the leisure class being replaced by a class that extols how much it works to be very interesting.
Overall, so far I see that our society, perhaps, is at an inevitable point on its path of capitalism/meritocracy. Why, however, do we have different levels of income inequality than other developed nations? Simply more capitalism?
Well............this may be the worst book I have read in the last 10 years..........and thus I have returned to Amazon for a refund. Looking forward (I think) to the next book.
Okay, I'm really trying. But on page 62, he talks about colleges and universities embracing black, or female, or gay identies, but denying "middle class identities". It's just too much. It implies that those other groups are not part of the mainstream middle class identity, and smacks of "it's so hard to be a white man these days"
Here's a piece from today, where a university is claiming success when they went from "legacy" to purely merit-based admissions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/hopkins-scraps-legacy-preference-for-children-of-alumni-who-seek-admission/2020/01/13/d559314a-3624-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html
Nick Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn' book "Tightrope" is out tomorrow. They can write and tell stories.
As a data nerd, and someone who is considered an elite or superordinate in the Meritocratic system described, I find the take on the idea of the return on time really interesting. I very often think of myself in these terms - the things worth my time in terms of financial return. Wonder if others think the same way.
Another thought I had was his take on education. I think he missed the mark on this as well. Historically, the "Ivy League" schools have been for the aristocracy. I believe the aristocracy has figured out how to game the meritocracy "trap" to keep them at the higher levels. Yes, there are students there who are killing themselves to get in on higher and higher merits. Let's not forget, however that Felicity Huffman is serving (served?) jail time and Lori "Aunt Becky" Loughlin is on her way to jail (along with other aristocrats) for "buying" meritocracy for their children. So it isn't wholly earned as the author wants to portray. And I didn't recall him even referring to the children who get in through the "legal" large donations of the parents to these same elite schools and not by merit.
Another thought I had was his take on education. I think he missed the mark on this as well. Historically, the "Ivy League" schools have been for the aristocracy. I believe the aristocracy has figured out how to game the meritocracy "trap" to keep them at the higher levels. Yes, there are students there who are killing themselves to get in on higher and higher merits. Let's not forget, however that Felicity Huffman is serving (served?) jail time and Lori "Aunt Becky" Loughlin is on her way to jail (along with other aristocrats) for "buying" meritocracy for their children. So it isn't wholly earned as the author wants to portray. And I didn't recall him even referring to the children who get in through the "legal" large donations to these same elite schools and not by merit.
I've gotten through Chapter 2 and while I think there is some credence to what the author is saying, I don't think it is nearly as dire as how the author is portraying it. Specifically how he is cherry picking anecdotes from St. Clair Shores, MI. Full disclosure, I am born, bread, and raised in the metro Detroit area, sans a few years when I lived in West Michigan and East Texas. I challenge anyone to pull up a map of the metro Detroit region to be able to distinguish any of the suburban cities from one another as they all run together on a map...similar to most metro areas.
St. Clair Shores (like Berkley, MI; and Royal Oak, MI; and Ferndale, MI; and Clarkston, MI; and...) is not an area where you are going to find big business or industry. They are bedroom and/or starter communities where people live and go to work in other areas in the Detroit areas (aka, Dearborn, MI; Warren, MI; Auburn Hills, MI; Farmington Hills, MI; and so on) as they climb the ladders of success. I have friends who live and have lived in St. Clair Shores, specifically. While, yes, there are some people there as described by the author, more than not, this is an area where this is someone's weekday and "winter" home. They have 2nd "retirement" homes up north or a boat they basically live on every weekend during the spring, summer, and fall. They didn't give Michigan the nickname the Great Lake State for nothing.
As a follow-up to The Library Book:
https://slate.com/culture/2020/01/goodnight-moon-nypl-10-most-checked-out-books.html
BTW Ronnie Lott is one of the greatest warriors in football history period! Only perhaps topped by Jack Youngblood who played in the playoffs, Super Bowl & Pro Bowl with a broken leg.
Tending to agree with the ideas being presented in the first three chapters. Things that really stuck out for me were the erosion of opportunity for the Middle Class and the extreme burnout rate for people after they have finally moved up to a job they thought would be more enjoyable or at least make their life better. Also the statement "the rich and the rest now work, marry, parent, socialize, read, eat and even worship differently" really hit home with how things have become more times than not in everyday life. Finally I really found his breakdown on Trump and why people voted for him to be spot on in many cases. Though I will say it still took a perfect storm of sorts for him to win the election.