Hey! Last week, we read chapters 4,5,6 and next week week we’ll discuss chapters 7,8, and 9.
This week’s discussion thread I want to try something a bit new! I know lots of folks are reading but not commenting (which is totally okay!) but I want to highlight some comments from last week that I thought were particularly were thought-provoking and dive in on them a little bit.
I picked out three particularly good ones.
This comment from Irish Twilight:
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.
This comment is from A to the Hizzo:
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.
This one from Max Van Glider gets at an issue a lot of people have it on:
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.
With this book, we’re getting a lot more dissection of the book than previously, which is cool: as fun as it is to have a book everyone basically likes, this is making for some great discussion. So keep it up, keep it positive but don’t hesitate to talk about it!
What do you think about these ideas? Did chapers 4, 5 or 6 change your view, or strengthen it?
No data? The entire second half of the book (in my electronic version) consists of notes end references. We may have some arguments with his central thesis, but lack of data does not appear to be that.
I admit, however, that in an ebook it is easy to miss the notes section until you finish the last chapter and suddenly realize that you are only 47% into the book..
Some of the things he's writing about now actually made me think as opposed to roll my eyes. I'll do my best to get this out...
If go by his prior arguments, we're in the first, maybe second generation of a profound meritocracy, in which the wealthiest get and keep their money by expounding massive labor (as opposed to, let's say, capital gains, which I kind of disagreed with, because once you hit a certian amount of wealth, you invest it, and then it grows, etc. etc. ).
So now, this generation fo the meritocracy, becoming billionaires by working their 90 hour weeks, are having children. And after his daughter was born, Zuckerburg pledged to give away 99% of his wealth. The idea being that, even though she doesn't have her full "inheritance" in the traditional aristocratic way, she'll still have all the meritocratic advantages she needs to become super-wealthy by becoming another intensive-labor meritocrat.
But my question is, does she have to? Will her parentage force her too? She could easily laze about like the leisure class for the rest of her life with 1% of Mark Zuckerberg's fortune.
Are Meritocrats going to produce more too-hard-working Meritocrats. Or could they potentially produce a new leisure class?
Maybe it's because I'm watching Succession right now (I'm still on season 2, no spoilers please), and I'm still obsesed about how Connor, who is literally nothing but the son of a gazillionaire, has the nerve to think he's got what it takes to run for president. He's the product of Meritocracy. But he's not a Meritocrat.
It's startling the advantage rich school aged children have over poor children especially in that by the time they are 18 they will have over 5 thousand more hours of being talked to, read to, attending cultural events, seeing museums, being coached in sports and such.
TBH - this has been a difficult book to read, especially in the current political environment. I have taken a pause, might rejoin next week. The first two book club selections were great escapes from the current news cycle. I cannot help but try to translate everything I'm reading in the IRL status of things.
Once again, I am listening to this book rather than "reading" it, and for each of these three books I have come to realize that was a poor choice on my part. I missed all the photos from Outlaw Ocean, for example, and now I don't have quick access to any of the data being provided in this book. This author is definitely an academician and researcher. Jong is right - there are pages and pages of endnotes and bibliography in this book. One can not really question his data; it is what the author is doing with the data that is important, and I think the main reason why this book has gotten the good reviews it has. He is showing an entirely different view of meritocracy and in doing so re-defining it. I am not sure yet what his definition now is, but I imagine that will be coming up in the last chapter(s). I am enjoying the history of all these ideas; e.g., the history of loan officers in banking and how we have gotten to this crazy position we now have for people working in finance. Just watch an episode or two of "Billions" and you will see young people who seem to have no other lives other than reading the stock market. And to "relax" they drink heavily and take serious drugs.
The recent reports on the college admissions/helicopter parents mess report how the children involved are dealing with this crisis - for the most part admonishing their parents for not trusting them. And most of those children have had to either drop out for awhile or re-apply to "lesser" schools and cross their fingers.
I was hating on this book pretty hard, until he accurately used the word "blunderbuss" in a sentence. That's not a joy I get to experience everyday.
No data? The entire second half of the book (in my electronic version) consists of notes end references. We may have some arguments with his central thesis, but lack of data does not appear to be that.
I admit, however, that in an ebook it is easy to miss the notes section until you finish the last chapter and suddenly realize that you are only 47% into the book..
That's why pre-school education is so important. Without it so many kids enter kindergarten already with huge deficits - low social capital.
That is hysterical! Can you tell us where that sentence is?
For sure.
First, thanks so much for the reference. So he's saying "forget about accuracy."
As for leisure and today's elite, there are many examples of
heirs loafing away their time and money, not at all wanting to be anything like their parents.
Your example could easily be said of Donald Trump, who still believes he is a "very stable genius" and a great president.
Some of the things he's writing about now actually made me think as opposed to roll my eyes. I'll do my best to get this out...
If go by his prior arguments, we're in the first, maybe second generation of a profound meritocracy, in which the wealthiest get and keep their money by expounding massive labor (as opposed to, let's say, capital gains, which I kind of disagreed with, because once you hit a certian amount of wealth, you invest it, and then it grows, etc. etc. ).
So now, this generation fo the meritocracy, becoming billionaires by working their 90 hour weeks, are having children. And after his daughter was born, Zuckerburg pledged to give away 99% of his wealth. The idea being that, even though she doesn't have her full "inheritance" in the traditional aristocratic way, she'll still have all the meritocratic advantages she needs to become super-wealthy by becoming another intensive-labor meritocrat.
But my question is, does she have to? Will her parentage force her too? She could easily laze about like the leisure class for the rest of her life with 1% of Mark Zuckerberg's fortune.
Are Meritocrats going to produce more too-hard-working Meritocrats. Or could they potentially produce a new leisure class?
Maybe it's because I'm watching Succession right now (I'm still on season 2, no spoilers please), and I'm still obsesed about how Connor, who is literally nothing but the son of a gazillionaire, has the nerve to think he's got what it takes to run for president. He's the product of Meritocracy. But he's not a Meritocrat.
It's startling the advantage rich school aged children have over poor children especially in that by the time they are 18 they will have over 5 thousand more hours of being talked to, read to, attending cultural events, seeing museums, being coached in sports and such.
TBH - this has been a difficult book to read, especially in the current political environment. I have taken a pause, might rejoin next week. The first two book club selections were great escapes from the current news cycle. I cannot help but try to translate everything I'm reading in the IRL status of things.
Once again, I am listening to this book rather than "reading" it, and for each of these three books I have come to realize that was a poor choice on my part. I missed all the photos from Outlaw Ocean, for example, and now I don't have quick access to any of the data being provided in this book. This author is definitely an academician and researcher. Jong is right - there are pages and pages of endnotes and bibliography in this book. One can not really question his data; it is what the author is doing with the data that is important, and I think the main reason why this book has gotten the good reviews it has. He is showing an entirely different view of meritocracy and in doing so re-defining it. I am not sure yet what his definition now is, but I imagine that will be coming up in the last chapter(s). I am enjoying the history of all these ideas; e.g., the history of loan officers in banking and how we have gotten to this crazy position we now have for people working in finance. Just watch an episode or two of "Billions" and you will see young people who seem to have no other lives other than reading the stock market. And to "relax" they drink heavily and take serious drugs.
The recent reports on the college admissions/helicopter parents mess report how the children involved are dealing with this crisis - for the most part admonishing their parents for not trusting them. And most of those children have had to either drop out for awhile or re-apply to "lesser" schools and cross their fingers.