One point that hasn't been addressed here - why do you assume that changes in intergenerational social strata are automatically good? What you term social mobility could also be termed social instability.
Situation 1:
A1 is a brilliant wealthy physician who raises his son A2 to be a brilliant wealthy physician. B1 is a scumbag poor drug dealer who raises his son B2 to be a scumbag poor drug dealer.
Situation 2:
A1 is a brilliant wealthy physician who raises his son A2 to be a brilliant wealthy physician. Unfortunately, A2 loses his practice and goes bankrupt when some idiot jury returns a massive malpractice reward against him in a situation that wasn't really his fault. B1 is a scumbag poor drug dealer who raises his son B2 to be a scumbag poor drug dealer. B2 then gets shot 45 times, writes a rap album about it, and becomes a billionaire.
According to your traditional measurement, situation 1 is one of little social mobility and therefore bad, while situation 2 is one with increased social mobility and therefore good. I would argue that 2 is actually an inferior society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahBill  Well said, and you use an appropriate amount of plain every day english to do it. Scucca reminds me of a book I tried to read that I eventually tossed. The author was a professor, and his book was apparently directed at other professors, using such verbostiy that it was hard to follow his train of thought. He even quotes foreigners in THEIR language, as if the average reader or even college professor can read half a dozen languages. Too bad, as I was sure he had some great information to impart that the general populace could benefit from.
I am sure Scucca has some valid points to make, but he needs to dumb it down a bit if he is to gain an audience within this forum. Only intellectual snobs use a dozen five dollar words to say what can be said with half a dozen one dollar words. |
troof.