Fairness and 'social mobility'
Discussion
Puggit said:
otolith said:
You can't level the nature/nurture playing field - but what you can (and should) do is to ensure that the state education system offers each child the opportunity to be equipped to fulfil their potential. If they don't take it, well, you can lead a horse to water.
Trying (for example) to get elite universities to lower their standards for bright kids from underprivileged backgrounds is an admission of failure by the state education system to offer those kids the best education they could benefit from, IMO.
Bang on the money!Trying (for example) to get elite universities to lower their standards for bright kids from underprivileged backgrounds is an admission of failure by the state education system to offer those kids the best education they could benefit from, IMO.
AJS- said:
I actually resent the concept of social mobility as it implies that there are different social strata that we must be mobile between. We're all skin and bone, and whatever your background it is amply possible in the UK, and has been for a long time, to make something of yourself in financial terms, in terms of education, owning property, and exhibiting good manners.
"Social mobility" is a left wing buzz word that was invented to perpetuate a false division between a blue blooded Etonian bogeyman who hasn't been seen since the 1950s and an oppressed working class that died soon after. They perpetuate this division because without it they are exposed for the meddling, self-serving and pointless party they are.
Agreed again, and although 'social mobility' is in widespread use it's main claim to fame is as yet another example of the left putting the word 'social' in front of something before taking the concept they created and scewing it up totally through rank incompetence. Other synthetic lefty concepts that have gone straight from ideology to fkup are 'social justice' and 'social inclusion'."Social mobility" is a left wing buzz word that was invented to perpetuate a false division between a blue blooded Etonian bogeyman who hasn't been seen since the 1950s and an oppressed working class that died soon after. They perpetuate this division because without it they are exposed for the meddling, self-serving and pointless party they are.
Timmy35 said:
Fittster said:
don4l said:
otolith said:
Personally, I think it's one where anyone can succeed with hard work and talent.
Sadly, that is not how a lot of politicians see it. I cringe every time that I hear Vince Cable use the word "Fairness".The reality is that we do have an environment where anyone can succeed. Unfortunately, large sections of society do not believe this - and so they cannot make the effort.
Don
--
If by pot luck you are born to professional/middle-class/educated/you-know-what-I-mean parents rather than benefit/chav scum, your life outcomes is going to be somewhat better.
The idea that all children have an equal playing field is obviously wrong.
If we consider that to problem is a different question.
It is not your parents, but your work ethic and application of your talents that determines your life outcome.
If you've failed to get as far in life as you'd like blaming who your parents were is easier than accepting that it's down to you.
The irony being that someone who blames other people for there lack of what they think they are due, should realise that it is precisely that attitude that explains why it is that they have failed to achieve.
For example There are clearly proven links between family income and GCSE scores.
source
The questions are:
Is it a problem and if so could anything really be done about?
Edited by Fittster on Wednesday 18th August 13:08
Jasandjules said:
Timmy35 said:
It is not your parents, but your work ethic and application of your talents that determines your life outcome.
Not in every occupation. There are still plenty of jobs where mummy and daddy count far more than actual intelligence/ability.Fittster said:
Timmy35 said:
Fittster said:
don4l said:
otolith said:
Personally, I think it's one where anyone can succeed with hard work and talent.
Sadly, that is not how a lot of politicians see it. I cringe every time that I hear Vince Cable use the word "Fairness".The reality is that we do have an environment where anyone can succeed. Unfortunately, large sections of society do not believe this - and so they cannot make the effort.
Don
--
If by pot luck you are born to professional/middle-class/educated/you-know-what-I-mean parents rather than benefit/chav scum, your life outcomes is going to be somewhat better.
The idea that all children have an equal playing field is obviously wrong.
If we consider that to problem is a different question.
It is not your parents, but your work ethic and application of your talents that determines your life outcome.
If you've failed to get as far in life as you'd like blaming who your parents were is easier than accepting that it's down to you.
The irony being that someone who blames other people for there lack of what they think they are due, should realise that it is precisely that attitude that explains why it is that they have failed to achieve.
For example There are clearly proven links between family income and GCSE scores.
source
The questions are:
Is it a problem and if so could anything really be done about?
Edited by Fittster on Wednesday 18th August 13:08
article said:
Labour's policies may be improving social mobility, according to a study published by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit.
.......well s
t me sideways who would have gussed it. The academic 'evidence' is poorly collated statistics collected as part of research conducted by left wing leaning institutions for left wing think tanks.
You can stuff your academics, I prefer the real world. Just because someone gets a study conducted by an egg head in a glass tower that dosen't make it correct.
Nor does that saggy jawed moron trying to justify wasting billions of taxpayers money by citing such studies conveince me for a nano second.
Edited by Timmy35 on Wednesday 18th August 13:29
Timmy35 said:
The academic 'evidence' is poorly collated statistics collected as part of research conducted by left wing leaning institutions for left wing think tanks.
You can stuff your academics, I prefer the real world. Just because someone gets a study conducted by an egg head in a glass tower that dosen't make it correct.
Whereas you anecdotal evidence proves the case? You can stuff your academics, I prefer the real world. Just because someone gets a study conducted by an egg head in a glass tower that dosen't make it correct.
How did you analysis these statistics?
By left wing organisations do you include the conservative party?
"there is strong evidence that what your parents do remains more important in shaping your destiny in Britain than in most other advanced countries. Here, the number of books in the family home is, for example, a far more powerful predictor of how a child will do at school than it is in France and Germany.
Naturally, most families will always try to do the best for their children: no government should ever attempt to stop or penalise that. But surely we should expect good education and training to enable children without book-filled homes and ambitious families to do well? That is where Britain is failing."
source
You may not consider social mobility to be a problem or something that can be resolved but to deny it exists in the face of all evidence is foolish.
Edited by Fittster on Wednesday 18th August 13:29
Timmy35 said:
Fittster said:
Whereas you anecdotal evidence proves the case?
One day you might realise that academic studies are not the laser like shedders of truth that you seem to think they are. Fittster said:
Timmy35 said:
Fittster said:
Whereas you anecdotal evidence proves the case?
One day you might realise that academic studies are not the laser like shedders of truth that you seem to think they are. 
Fittster said:
For example There are clearly proven links between family income and GCSE scores.
source
The questions are:
Is it a problem and if so could anything really be done about?
There is nothing you can do about the nature/nurture side. Thick parents will tend to have thick children. Thick people are often (but not always) poor. All you can do is ensure that those children who do have potential get all the opportunities you can give them. We used to have grammar schools for this purpose, but many of their alumni on the left seem determined to pull the ladder up.source
The questions are:
Is it a problem and if so could anything really be done about?
Fittster said:
Timmy35 said:
Fittster said:
Whereas you anecdotal evidence proves the case?
One day you might realise that academic studies are not the laser like shedders of truth that you seem to think they are. Fittster said:
don4l said:
otolith said:
Personally, I think it's one where anyone can succeed with hard work and talent.
Sadly, that is not how a lot of politicians see it. I cringe every time that I hear Vince Cable use the word "Fairness".The reality is that we do have an environment where anyone can succeed. Unfortunately, large sections of society do not believe this - and so they cannot make the effort.
If by pot luck you are born to professional/middle-class/educated/you-know-what-I-mean parents rather than benefit/chav scum, your life outcomes is going to be somewhat better.
The idea that all children have an equal playing field is obviously wrong.
If we consider that to problem is a different question.
People who are born into the "middle classes" see their parents making a good living. This is the norm for them. They grow up knowing that it is possible to earn a decent wage.
On the other hand, people who are born into poverty think that it is impossible to get out of it. They see their parents struggle for years, and by the time that they reach working age, they "know" that it is impossible to get out of poverty.
The solution doesn't lie in the benefits system. It lies in education. If the "lower classes" could be taught that they could better themselves, then they would find it much easier to go and get work.
Don
--
Fittster said:
Timmy35 said:
Fittster said:
Whereas you anecdotal evidence proves the case?
One day you might realise that academic studies are not the laser like shedders of truth that you seem to think they are. don4l said:
But the reasons that the life outcomes is nothing to do with society in general. It is to do with the individuals' aspirations and their confidence - if you don't believe that you can do something, then you cannot even make the effort.
People who are born into the "middle classes" see their parents making a good living. This is the norm for them. They grow up knowing that it is possible to earn a decent wage.
On the other hand, people who are born into poverty think that it is impossible to get out of it. They see their parents struggle for years, and by the time that they reach working age, they "know" that it is impossible to get out of poverty.
The solution doesn't lie in the benefits system. It lies in education. If the "lower classes" could be taught that they could better themselves, then they would find it much easier to go and get work.
Don
--
Aren't you discounting the impact that parents have on their children's lives? To take an extreme, if a baby is born to a mother who smokes, eats badly, drinks and takes drugs while pregnant resulting in a low birth weight they are more likely to have a poor life outcome. I can't see how that can be down to the individual.People who are born into the "middle classes" see their parents making a good living. This is the norm for them. They grow up knowing that it is possible to earn a decent wage.
On the other hand, people who are born into poverty think that it is impossible to get out of it. They see their parents struggle for years, and by the time that they reach working age, they "know" that it is impossible to get out of poverty.
The solution doesn't lie in the benefits system. It lies in education. If the "lower classes" could be taught that they could better themselves, then they would find it much easier to go and get work.
Don
--
"Low birth weight is also associated with delayed physical and intellectual development in early childhood, and in adolescence."
http://www.poverty.org.uk/20/index.shtml
While search on the issue I can across the following, maybe we shouldn't try to do anything about social mobility.
"One example is social mobility. Everyone says they are in favour of having more of it. This is fine when we are talking about absolute social mobility – increasing the numbers getting into the middle class, as happened in the fifties and sixties. But the only way to increase relative social mobility (or to increase absolute social mobility when the middle class has stopped expanding) is to make it easier for people to come down as well as go up.
‘But it is far from clear that a society in which it is easier for middle class people to be downwardly socially mobile would be a more content society. Behavioural economics teaches us that the pleasure of upward social mobility (getting something we didn’t have before) is less than the pain of downward social mobility (losing something we have now). So the net social contentment impact of increasing relative social mobility (disregarding other knock-on effects) is negative. In other words the one thing all leading politician say they want more of is something that will make us less happy as a society!’"
I can't see how 'social mobility' can possibly be provided for all, even with the right education and opportunities, when those at the bottom of our UK pile seem to breed so prolifically. Surely it's simply impossible for them all, or even a significant proportion, to move 'up'. They will simply remain at that level, and many of them will then also breed more prolifically, and earlier in life than those higher up the social strata, thereby exacerbating the problem.
A fact that surely cannot be ignored is that, no matter how much we want all children to have equal opportunites and a bright future (won't somebody think of the children....), many of these children shouldn't exist in the first place, and the over-breeding of the non-contributors is an issue that, if not addressed, will continue to bring the UK down.
"But it's their 'human right' to breed!". "fk off. Just fk off and die. No it isn't, not if you can't support them financially, emotionally, educationally or in just giving them a half-decent start in life, so stop talking bks."
A fact that surely cannot be ignored is that, no matter how much we want all children to have equal opportunites and a bright future (won't somebody think of the children....), many of these children shouldn't exist in the first place, and the over-breeding of the non-contributors is an issue that, if not addressed, will continue to bring the UK down.
"But it's their 'human right' to breed!". "f
k off. Just fk off and die. No it isn't, not if you can't support them financially, emotionally, educationally or in just giving them a half-decent start in life, so stop talking bks."Fittster said:
don4l said:
But the reasons that the life outcomes is nothing to do with society in general. It is to do with the individuals' aspirations and their confidence - if you don't believe that you can do something, then you cannot even make the effort.
People who are born into the "middle classes" see their parents making a good living. This is the norm for them. They grow up knowing that it is possible to earn a decent wage.
On the other hand, people who are born into poverty think that it is impossible to get out of it. They see their parents struggle for years, and by the time that they reach working age, they "know" that it is impossible to get out of poverty.
The solution doesn't lie in the benefits system. It lies in education. If the "lower classes" could be taught that they could better themselves, then they would find it much easier to go and get work.
Don
--
Aren't you discounting the impact that parents have on their children's lives? To take an extreme, if a baby is born to a mother who smokes, eats badly, drinks and takes drugs while pregnant resulting in a low birth weight they are more likely to have a poor life outcome. I can't see how that can be down to the individual.People who are born into the "middle classes" see their parents making a good living. This is the norm for them. They grow up knowing that it is possible to earn a decent wage.
On the other hand, people who are born into poverty think that it is impossible to get out of it. They see their parents struggle for years, and by the time that they reach working age, they "know" that it is impossible to get out of poverty.
The solution doesn't lie in the benefits system. It lies in education. If the "lower classes" could be taught that they could better themselves, then they would find it much easier to go and get work.
Don
--
"Low birth weight is also associated with delayed physical and intellectual development in early childhood, and in adolescence."
http://www.poverty.org.uk/20/index.shtml
However, it has sod all to do with the parents' diet. It is almost entirely down to aspiration and confidence.
Kids brought up in poor families are unlikely to have great ambitions and will also lack the belief that they could achieve much anyway. So they find it very difficult to make the effort.
Don
--
Fittster said:
‘But it is far from clear that a society in which it is easier for middle class people to be downwardly socially mobile would be a more content society. Behavioural economics teaches us that the pleasure of upward social mobility (getting something we didn’t have before) is less than the pain of downward social mobility (losing something we have now). So the net social contentment impact of increasing relative social mobility (disregarding other knock-on effects) is negative. In other words the one thing all leading politician say they want more of is something that will make us less happy as a society!’"
That doesn't explain the children of resolutely middle class parents who horrify their parents by dropping out of university and deciding that a life of dole and dope is preferable to putting in the work to achieve things for themselves. Some people do choose downward mobility, and as a permanent lifestyle choice not a temporary fad.Elroy Blue said:
There's been a lot on the news over the last few days about 'fairness and social mobility'. I don't think there is any other subject that gets my blood boiling more.
Why don't they just say what they mean...if you work, we're going to tax you to death so the Stella swigging, benefit scrounging underclass can have a new 50" TV!
The problem appears to me that politicians are aiming for equality of outcome as opposed to equality of opportunity. So the feckless have far better opportunities thrust upon them to compensate for their fecklessness.Why don't they just say what they mean...if you work, we're going to tax you to death so the Stella swigging, benefit scrounging underclass can have a new 50" TV!
Manks said:
Elroy Blue said:
There's been a lot on the news over the last few days about 'fairness and social mobility'. I don't think there is any other subject that gets my blood boiling more.
Why don't they just say what they mean...if you work, we're going to tax you to death so the Stella swigging, benefit scrounging underclass can have a new 50" TV!
The problem appears to me that politicians are aiming for equality of outcome as opposed to equality of opportunity. So the feckless have far better opportunities thrust upon them to compensate for their fecklessness.Why don't they just say what they mean...if you work, we're going to tax you to death so the Stella swigging, benefit scrounging underclass can have a new 50" TV!
otolith said:
Fittster said:
‘But it is far from clear that a society in which it is easier for middle class people to be downwardly socially mobile would be a more content society. Behavioural economics teaches us that the pleasure of upward social mobility (getting something we didn’t have before) is less than the pain of downward social mobility (losing something we have now). So the net social contentment impact of increasing relative social mobility (disregarding other knock-on effects) is negative. In other words the one thing all leading politician say they want more of is something that will make us less happy as a society!’"
That doesn't explain the children of resolutely middle class parents who horrify their parents by dropping out of university and deciding that a life of dole and dope is preferable to putting in the work to achieve things for themselves. Some people do choose downward mobility, and as a permanent lifestyle choice not a temporary fad.With a few exceptions, I've only ever known middle class people, and I can't think of one who has dropped out and gone on the dole, actively choosing 'downward mobility'.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff