Register to reply

Level the playing field ?

by Oltz
Tags: None
Share this thread:
Evo
#19
Nov15-11, 08:28 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,557
Apeiron's post made me think of this.

http://www.breitbart.tv/bill-whittle...treet-grow-up/
WhoWee
#20
Nov15-11, 08:40 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Apeiron's post made me think of this.

http://www.breitbart.tv/bill-whittle...treet-grow-up/
That was great!
rootX
#21
Nov15-11, 09:27 PM
rootX's Avatar
P: 1,294
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Apeiron's post made me think of this.

http://www.breitbart.tv/bill-whittle...treet-grow-up/
I wasn't really impressed how he seem to misuse the Solow growth curve concept[1] and provided conclusion of being grateful to corporations. It's the first time ever I heard that I should be thankful to people who sell me things I need.

I noticed in my HS there was lots of rewards for just making efforts (as he said in the video) but this didn't turn out to be true in University.

I didn't really pay much attention to wall street people so can't really tell if they need to be sent to woods.
Evo
#22
Nov15-11, 09:30 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,557
Quote Quote by rootX View Post
I wasn't really impressed how he seem to misuse the Solow growth curve concept[1] and provided conclusion of being grateful to corporations. It's the first time ever I heard that I should be thankful to people who sell me things I need.
That's a poke at the complaint that corporations are bad.

The whole thing is tongue in cheek, while at the same time pointing out the unreal feelings of entitlement that seems to be so pervasive among those that are unhappy.
rootX
#23
Nov15-11, 09:50 PM
rootX's Avatar
P: 1,294
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
That's a poke at the complaint that corporations are bad.
My sister emailed me this picture a while ago
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/...225120265.jpeg
Evo
#24
Nov15-11, 09:54 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,557
Quote Quote by rootX View Post
My sister emailed me this picture a while ago
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/...225120265.jpeg
Ahahaha!!!! That's a good one!!
apeiron
#25
Nov15-11, 10:54 PM
PF Gold
apeiron's Avatar
P: 2,432
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
The whole thing is tongue in cheek, while at the same time pointing out the unreal feelings of entitlement that seems to be so pervasive among those that are unhappy.
OWS is just one face of things. And indeed, you could level at them the same charge of self-indulgent brats that was levelled at, oh say, their baby boomer hippy or Gen X punk parents.

IMO, an unreal sense of entitlement has been around a good 50 years now. Boomers in particular seem wedded to the belief that they are entitled to ever increasing personal freedom coupled to an ever rising material consumption.

But if you dig into the future of political thought, the Gen Y response to life is much more interesting than this kind of cheap shot bunch of kiddy whiners "analysis" might suggest.

For example, there are many who believe they can reform the world via social entrepreneurship. So that is about attaching a new set of values to free market principles. It is a well-articulated response (though still debatable how well it will work in practice).

See for example, http://tedxyse.org/

Then there are the more traditional greenie and sustainability responses going on. Like for example, http://www.transitionnetwork.org/

A lot of people judge political change in terms of what they know from the past. Communism, facism, neoliberalism, other historical experiments which seemed right for the time. It is then not easy to recognise the changes that are ushering in the future.

So yes, Gen Y does feel entitled. But while we are making the sweeping generalisations, we should also say empowered, upbeat, concerned by issues such as social equality.

Here is a little summary of the generational differences. And the world shaped to the tastes of baby boomers can't last forever.

Baby Boomers (1946 to 1964)
Defined by civil rights, Vietnam War, sexual revolution.
Grew up with stay-at-home moms, narrow gender roles, stable families.
Personality style is narcissistic, judgmental, intellectually questioning.

Generation X (1965 to 1979)
Defined by AIDS, recession, Cold War, soaring divorce rates
Grew up with divorce, latchkey kids, loose adult supervision.
Personality style is sceptical, searching, confrontational, individualistic,

Generation Y (1980 to 1994)
Defined by digital age, terrorism, globalisation.
Grew up with involved parents, cultural freedom but physical restrictions.
Personality style is disciplined, educated, competitive, upbeat, entitled.

Source: 2006 Cone Millennial Cause Study
Evo
#26
Nov15-11, 11:02 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,557
A lot of posters I see are calling for socialism. I don't think these kids have any clue what that means. I Believe that they truly think the answer is to take everything way from the rich and divide it amongst themselves and then all will be a "level playing field".
Attached Thumbnails
socialism.jpg  
WhoWee
#27
Nov15-11, 11:18 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
A lot of posters I see are calling for socialism. I don't think these kids have any clue what that means.
Anyone want to experiment?

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp
Oltz
#28
Nov16-11, 07:37 AM
P: 12
Ok so Part 2

How do we achieve this leveling you all want?

How level do you want it ? Should the government raise eevry child and support them the same and feed them the same and force them to only learn the same things until age 25? so its fair adn they all have the same qaulifications?

Do we agree that everyone is equal under the law and at birth?

Do we agree that a majority will take advantage of a minority given the chance?

Do you think maybe the "rich" would not use their money to control poitics if they were not afraid the masses would simply take what they have worked for if they did not?
Ryan_m_b
#29
Nov16-11, 07:59 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,473
Quote Quote by Oltz View Post
Ok so Part 2

How do we achieve this leveling you all want?
This utterly depends on the situation one is talking about. If the issue is the one I highlighted earlier (a disproportionate number of people from a certain background being accepted to certain schools) you could introduce tougher rules on how decisions are made. If the situation is that people of different sexual orientations are finding themselves discriminated when applying to certain jobs you could remove the legislation blocking them.

For many problems though the change required is going to be cultural rather than legal. It's pretty hard to influence that.
Quote Quote by Oltz View Post
How level do you want it ? Should the government raise eevry child and support them the same and feed them the same and force them to only learn the same things until age 25? so its fair adn they all have the same qaulifications?
I don't think anyone would argue that. What most people want (and certainly what I want) would be to live in a society where anyone regardless of wealth, sex, ethnicity, class, background etc had the same opportunities as everyone else. That doesn't mean that if you have two people applying for a job they should be treated as equals, it means that they should be treated on their capabilities alone. Something that would aid this scenario is removing the obstacles that are in place for some groups in areas like getting an education.

I'm not saying that everyone should automatically get everything given to them on a platter not that people shouldn't work hard or anything like that. What I'm saying is that there are no barriers in the way of people doing things like getting an education or getting a job except capability.
Quote Quote by Oltz View Post
Do we agree that everyone is equal under the law and at birth?
What do you mean by "equal"? We all deserve equal rights and treatment under the law yes. I don't know how much further that statement can go currently.
Quote Quote by Oltz View Post
Do we agree that a majority will take advantage of a minority given the chance?
No.
Quote Quote by Oltz View Post
Do you think maybe the "rich" would not use their money to control poitics if they were not afraid the masses would simply take what they have worked for if they did not?
There are more groups in the world than rich and poor. Elitism comes in many forms and wealth is just one of them. I think it is naive to simply say that "the masses" are champing at the bit to steal from the rich and that the rich spend a lot of what they have protecting themselves from everyone else.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but I think you are suggesting that wealthy people influence politics as a means of protecting themselves from everyone else stealing their wealth? No I don't think that is the case, I think the majority of people the majority of the time would like to have political influence in their favour and some people are capable of exercising this.
WhoWee
#30
Nov16-11, 08:20 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
I don't think anyone would argue that. What most people want (and certainly what I want) would be to live in a society where anyone regardless of wealth, sex, ethnicity, class, background etc had the same opportunities as everyone else. That doesn't mean that if you have two people applying for a job they should be treated as equals, it means that they should be treated on their capabilities alone. Something that would aid this scenario is removing the obstacles that are in place for some groups in areas like getting an education.
my bold

Currently, tax policy favors companies that hire minorities, veterans, felons, welfare recipients, and women (basically everyone except white males that haven't served time in prison or the military) - how would you restructure these initiatives?
Ryan_m_b
#31
Nov16-11, 08:48 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,473
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
my bold

Currently, tax policy favors companies that hire minorities, veterans, felons, welfare recipients, and women (basically everyone except white males that haven't served time in prison or the military) - how would you restructure these initiatives?
No idea (also I'm not from your country and I don't know if such tax policies exist in mine). What I will say is that I doubt hiring quotas are a good thing.
AlephZero
#32
Nov16-11, 01:29 PM
Engineering
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 7,175
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
I don't think these kids have any clue what that means.
An earler version of the Snopes link joke (original source lost in the mists of time)

Socialist athletics team: 8 people who can all jump 1 foot and run 100m in 80 seconds.

Capitalist athletics team: 1 person who can jump 8 feet, 1 person who can run 100m in 10 seconds, 1 project manager, 1 management accountant, 1 PR consultant, and 3 lawyers.
ginru
#33
Nov16-11, 01:47 PM
P: 2
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Currently, tax policy favors companies that hire minorities, veterans, felons, welfare recipients, and women (basically everyone except white males that haven't served time in prison or the military) - how would you restructure these initiatives?
Personally, I'd like to move away from discriminatory incentives like those ones along with unemployment benefits and welfare altogether. Instead, shift the underclass labor towards being a dynamic freelance workforce constantly engaged in learning, teaching, and working. Internship/training programs for unemployed workers would be vital in maintaining practical skills and experience between projects, and then compensation for such would be minimal to avoid conflict with the fully-employed workforce. Perhaps taxes would be raised on corporations that outsource overseas but then we could likewise give equivalent tax breaks to those that engage in domestic training systems.

In addition, there would be local nonprofit unions to act as both a talent agency and a consumer block that effectively coordinates work/training programs with local businesses, ensure transparent fairness, and create marketing incentives to get consumers to buy from those businesses.

Honestly, I don't see why it's so difficult to figure out creative ways to make use of large numbers of young or laid-off workers, especially as there's currently a greater aptitude in this generation for things like crowdsourcing and other cooperative models.

For example: Under older models, the logical path would be to have a kid work hard at cleaning toilets all day for min wage. This generation is perhaps too self-entitled for that but also their potential is more dynamic in that they'd show a keener resourcefulness in organizing a flash mob to come and clean all the toilets in 30 minutes, tap their phones together to compensate the freelance workers, and then move onto the next project. This grouped-freelancing aptitude mixed with access to technology is their competitive edge over cheap immigrant labor.

Also, I think it's unproductive to simply dwell on the notion of leveling the playing field because the real issue, IMO, is figuring out the best ways to tap into the Potential of underclass workers. It doesn't help to brush large groups aside by looking down on them as ignorant slobs incapable of anything useful. That only breeds more resentment and factional extremism, which in turn leads to them supporting retaliatory unfairness in the form of reverse discrimination or forced redistribution.
russ_watters
#34
Nov16-11, 02:25 PM
Mentor
P: 22,303
Frankly, I don't think anyone clearly described/defined the analogy and any useful discussion must start with such clarity:

The game is life and the goal is to live long and prosper.

To conservatives and as intended by the Constition (minus the now corrected racist and sexist caveats....), "a level playing field" is a set of rules that apply equally to all. In the Constitution, that's "equal protection" under the law.

Liberals take a broader view of what is encompassed by "the playing field" which often includes the results on the scoreboard (as shown by wealth inequality discussions). But to me the analogy gets strained by an improper definition of "the playing field", as also discussed previously in the difference between "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome". In essence, though, most liberals to one extreme or another, seek an improved level of equality on the scoreboard, not just an equality on the playing field. Or, rather, some presume that an equality on the playing field will result in an equality on the scoreboard. For example:

1. Taxes and redistribution. Trying to fit this to "the playing field" part of the analogy seems difficult to me. It looks to me like every time the "team" that is "ahead" scores, you take a fraction of their score and give it to the "team" that is "behind".

2. Healthcare. Healthcare is a consumer service - something you buy with money. So you could simply analyze it according to #1. Or seeing it separately, nationalizing it would mean removing the goals from the field and simply assigning everyone an equal score for the game.

3. Minimum wage. Someone mentioned some OWS protestors favor a $20/hr minimum wage. So then the rule would be that at the start of the game, you assign everyone a minimum score. Oh, and at the same time the OWS protestors want to cap the maximum score too.

4. College admission for underpriveledged and often underqualified kids. In sports, there are many things that go into being a good player. Genetics, equipment quality, training effort, training quality. Many of these are derived from our parents. Liberals often find it desirable to try to level-out these factors in the "real world" (such as, again, in education). That's difficult to do quantatatively, but I suppose one "fair" way would be to make each player wear a backpack full of enough weights for all to run at the same speed. And this would be an effective way of fostering the goal of leveling the score as well.
Oltz
#35
Nov16-11, 02:48 PM
P: 12
Personally I do not think any applications to jobs or schools should include any personal information simply a Social security number and an Address to send the result to. No Age, Race, Sex, Religion, Sexual preference None of it. Then they make the choices based on what the resume says for itself not on what percent of the workforce your "peers" make up.

Has anyone else noticed all of the "level the playing field" people from the OWS thread have not stepped forward to actually explain what that means? At least 3 poeple actually said that phrase during the thread and none would ever define that other then "the rich get richer the poor get poorer" or "income inequality equals social mobility so we need to fix it"

How?

Multiple other threads have shown how poorly "social mobility" stats actually represent anything.

Maybe give it another 2 days for somebody to present an actual answer (not a conservative or moderate guessing but something they actually want to see happen) then abandon this thread as another substanceless exchange of what we think they mean and why we do not understand how they could want that.
Jimmy Snyder
#36
Nov16-11, 02:48 PM
P: 2,179
Perhaps they mean that when the last trillionaire standing collects that last stray dollar so that all of the money is in the hands of a single individual, then we will have a kind of level playing field. Or perhaps it means that everyone has the exact same amount of money. This is difficult to maintain since someone might get hungry enough to buy some food with their money and upset the level. Here is the same story I have posted on several occasions in the past.

My neighbor and I are equal in almost all things. We each have an apple. However, there is a slight difference in that he likes to eat his apple in the morning and I like to eat mine in the afternoon. One day the OWS crowd happened by just at noon. What they saw was that I had an apple and my neighbor did not. That's not a level playing field they said. So they cut my apple in three, one for me, one for my neighbor, and one for themselves. Level.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
The more political thread besides Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants scientific one Nuclear Engineering 764
In binary can we have a value with deci centi mili or more lower valued prefix? Computers 14
What is the difference between Field and Set ? Linear & Abstract Algebra 12
Difference between Identical , Equal , Equivalent Calculus & Beyond Homework 9