Re: OT: This is why there are "denialists"...

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:03:16 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:16:39 -0500, krw <krw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:41:50 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:18:24 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:40:26 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:44:28 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>
So name some classes in the USA and identify the class boundaries.

You might start with Wiki?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States

....

You surprised me with your assignment of the rich as either those who
earned it or else stole it. There are some very obvious 'others' that
it shocks me to realize you don't see. Some simply inherit it. I
remember one chap, just recently in fact, coming into a camera shop to
buy an expensive lens ($120k.) He was complaining to the salesman
that his family (I can name them, if you like, but for now it doesn't
matter) was "cutting him back" to an allowance of $5M/yr and he had no
idea how he was going to manage on that. I spoke with the salesman,
who knew him off and on, afterwards. This customer, in his 40's, had
never worked in his life. Not ever. Now, this person, so far as I'm
aware, neither 'earned it' nor 'stole it.' I'm surprised you haven't
met such folks enough to have added them to your list. That's by no
means a list from me, John. Just a single data point so that you will
open your eyes a little more.

I've met, and dated, trust-fund kiddies. Sure, rich people leave
wealth to their kids. Why does that seem to upset you, if the wealth
was acquired legally? We need wealthy people to invest, to defer
consumption. Poor people can't afford to invest on any useful scale.

Inherited wealth tends to dissipate over a few generations anyhow. We
don't "entail" wealth.



In any case, this subject has received a lot of both scientific
attention as well as public attention in the past. I believe a bunch
of New York Times reporters got together to do a book on the subject a
few years back. And I would refer you to Google Scholar for the
scientific studies that have been done. At least a few I saw date
back to 1960 (Warner et al), but you may want to ignore things that
old. A pretty good book on the subject is Rhonda Levine's "Social
Class and Stratification" which is in its 2nd edition in 2006, I
believe. It's pretty solid.

I'm not so interested in convincing you of the fact, though, as much
as I am in simply not letting your ignorant statement ride without
challenge. You can keep your opinion and I'm fine with that. But
others need to know your opinion has been challenged and is likely not
true, at all.

I suppose you define "class" as "inequality" with arbitrary, hence
unmeasurable, boundaries. I define "class" as a distinct anomoly in a
normal distribution, a sub-population that has identifiable barriers
to entry. The US has little in the way of class by my definition.
Maybe pro football players, where women are not allowed.

I define class when there are very substantial stratifications.

Ok, but John's point is that in the US there *aren't* substantial
stratifications. There is a continuum, with people moving from one
economic group to another and back over their lifetimes.

There are, no question. I'm an example of one. But that changes
nothing about the reality. Substantial stratifications remain.

There is *not*, no question. There is no layering. There *is* a
continuum, with people moving from one "class" to another constantly.
"Class" is internally defined.

The US used to have a huge class, namely non-whites, who couldn't
enter certain schools or professions simply because of their race.
Same for women. This sort of thing is less and less frequent.

The US has made spurts of progress, at times, and at other times, fell
backwards. Recently, comes to mind, for the latter.

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

At least you agree that your crap is nonsense.

But read some of the scholarly material on the subject. It's better
about this than I'll be and far, far more comprehensive and thorough.
I've provided one fairly decent example for you, which is Levine's
book. It provides all the necessary definitions and documentation to
make the points clearer to you.

You've provided no good examples of anything other than artificially
defined "classes". Why don't you explain what *you* mean?

Actually, I did. You just didn't like it. Besides, I have already
referred to some who've done a much better job providing the necessary
documentation and definitions than I may. The research is out there
and not difficult to lay hands on.

No, you didn't. Your examples and definitions drawn from them are
completely circular. Your "research" is nothing of the kind. It's
more circular nonsense. Try looking at the US income statistics based
on individual earnings over their lifetimes. You'll find that there
are no strata.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: This is why there are "denialists"...
    ... So name some classes in the USA and identify the class boundaries. ... Why does that seem to upset you, if the wealth ... You can keep your opinion and I'm fine with that. ... I define class when there are very substantial stratifications. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: This is why there are "denialists"...
    ... So name some classes in the USA and identify the class boundaries. ... Why does that seem to upset you, if the wealth ... attention as well as public attention in the past. ... You can keep your opinion and I'm fine with that. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: the Shoe Goes On The Other Foot-HAR HAR HAR!
    ... FOX NEWS is FOX ENTERTAINMENT. ... Obama's use of the word "distribution" in the context of that sentence ... did not mention "wealth" at all. ... I reserve my respect for those that, when I post my opinion on something, they post their opposing opinion and then, rather than try to argue theirs against mine, just leave it at that. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT: This is why there are "denialists"...
    ... Why does that seem to upset you, if the wealth ... You can keep your opinion and I'm fine with that. ... I define class when there are very substantial stratifications. ... It provides all the necessary definitions and documentation to ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: This is why there are "denialists"...
    ... So name some classes in the USA and identify the class boundaries. ... Why does that seem to upset you, if the wealth ... You can keep your opinion and I'm fine with that. ... It provides all the necessary definitions and documentation to ...
    (sci.electronics.design)