Cartoon: Class difference in society

[jobyts]

I found this one interesting:

http://nextshark.com/one-comic-perfectly-sums-up-class-differences-in-society/

 

[QuantumCurt]

This is amazingly accurate. So many people are quite ignorant of just how much class stratification still exists in the US.

 

[Vanadium 50]

One could discuss this quantitatively. For example, if two fathers' incomes differ by 10%, how much do their childrens' income differ by (on average). And how much should they differ by?

 

[jobyts]

California has API (Academic Performance Index) scores for schools. The other full form is Affluent Parent Index.

 

[russ_watters]

Terrible.

For the cartoon itself, I found a few quality issues:
1. The lack of symetry between the two "dad" scenes (why was only the poor one sick?) felt manipulative.
2. I realize the chronology was non-linear to enable the "punchline" to be last, but it makes less sense that way.
3. "Paula's house is full of people and not much else"...except a flat-screen TV. "It's damp"? Damp? Really?
4. My first thought after reading this was "what did she do wrong that she ended up with a job as a waitress after getting a degree from 'polytech'?" Does "polytech" offer a degree in Art History?

After a while thinking about the message and finding it vaguely whiney/annoying ("class"? really?), but not being able to put my finger on the (other) flaw(s) in the message itself, I remembered a speech given by a Vietnam POW: He said the only thing in life that you have total control over is your attitude. So if Paula got into her 20s with lower expectations than the rich kid, it's her fault and more so her parents' fault for setting low expectations for her and driving into her that she wasn't worth better. I dated Paula's sister. She hated her parents for that, was always rebellious growing up and succeeded despite (to spite?) them.

There's a thread going in Academic guidance about the not-as-dirty-as-people-would-like-to-think secret alternate reality: once you make it to college, virtually nothing that happened before matters anymore and it matters very little where go you. At that point, your success or failure is virtually entirely up to you.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/admissions-where-you-go-is-not-who-youll-become.815805/

An excerpt from an article linked in the OP:

All should hear and heed the stories of Peter Hart and Jenna Leahy.

Peter didn’t try for the Ivy League. That wasn’t the kind of student he’d been at New Trier High School, in an affluent Chicago suburb. Most of its graduating seniors go on to higher education, and most know, from where they stand among their peers, what sort of college they can hope to attend. A friend of Peter’s was ranked near the summit of their class; she set her sights on Yale — and ended up there. Peter was ranked in the top third, and aimed for the University of Michigan or maybe the special undergraduate business school at the University of Illinois.

Both rejected him.

He went to Indiana University instead...

Upon graduation, he took a plum job in the Chicago office of the Boston Consulting Group, where he recognized one of the other new hires: the friend from New Trier who’d gone to Yale. Traveling a more gilded path, she’d arrived at the same destination. [emphasis added]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/o...o-survive-the-college-admissions-madness.html

So I guess the main thing I dislike about this is the sense of futility and worse, that people think that it's ok think it is ok to be a failure. It's not. It's not ok to be a failure and its not ok to accept thinking like a failure.

 

[QuantumCurt]

1. The lack of symetry between the two "dad" scenes (why was only the poor one sick?) felt manipulative.

Socioeconomic class has been pretty closely tied to overall health and life expectancy. People in lower socioeconomic classes tend to have much greater levels of stress which can be a great contributor to a range of health problems. In addition, life expectancy in the wealthier classes tends to be greater. See here and https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-wsh.aspx . This is why the poor one is portrayed as sick; because it's typical of differences that exist between these two social classes. Less access to medical care, aside from just the stress, is a significant contributor here as well.

3. "Paula's house is full of people and not much else"...except a flat-screen TV. "It's damp"? Damp? Really?

I could go buy a flat screen TV down the street at Dollar General for less than $100 right now. Specifying it as a 'flat screen' seems to suggest a greater expense, but this distinction is needless. All TV's are flat screens today. I wouldn't even know where to go to get a CRT TV.

4. My first thought after reading this was "what did she do wrong that she ended up with a job as a waitress after getting a degree from 'polytech'?" Does "polytech" offer a degree in Art History?

It's not necessarily that she did anything wrong as such. When a student has access to a much greater source of financial support in their parents, the immediacy of looming student loan debt is less crucial. Paula may not have any type of outside support from her family. Richard has a much easier time of receiving financial support from outside institutions as well because the lender realizes that a wealthier family is a better bet for a loan client.

After a while thinking about the message and finding it vaguely whiney/annoying ("class"? really?),

I hope you aren't trying to suggest that class stratification such as this doesn't exist in the US.

So I guess the main thing I dislike about this is the sense of futility and worse, that people think that it's ok think it is ok to be a failure. It's not. It's not ok to be a failure and its not ok to accept thinking like a failure.

Who says that Paula is a failure? Perhaps she's simply doing the best that she can with the resources that are available to her. It really is not a mystery that the upper class in the US has a significantly greater leg up on the lower classes. That's why the socioeconomic system in the US is so incredibly immobile. It's hard to jump from a lower class to an upper class, and rarely actually happens.

 

[russ_watters]

Socioeconomic class has been pretty closely tied to overall health and life expectancy.

But not enough that it should matter here -- unless since this is a cartoon it is ok to exaggerate. Assuming your first link's claim of a 25% difference is controlled for other factors/life choices (seems unlikely, but don't feel like looking into it more), the girl's father should be in his early to mid 50s when she's graduating from college and his average life expectancy is about 67.

And perhaps more to the point, there should not be much of a correllation between the sick parent and the kid's success/failure. I dated that girl as well (old dad married young mom, dad died when she was in college) and she turned-out fine as well.

Less access to medical care, aside from just the stress, is a significant contributor here as well.

But to the girl's father, not to her.

I could go buy a flat screen TV down the street at Dollar General for less than $100 right now. Specifying it as a 'flat screen' seems to suggest a greater expense, but this distinction is needless. All TV's are flat screens today. I wouldn't even know where to go to get a CRT TV.

You probably can't buy a CRT unless it's 2nd hand, but you miss the point: the point is that the cartoon is being manipulative and dishonest when in one frame it shows the girl sitting on a bare floor in an empty room whereas in the other she's sitting on a couch, watching TV. They directly contradict each other: only one can be true.

It's not necessarily that she did anything wrong as such. When a student has access to a much greater source of financial support in their parents, the immediacy of looming student loan debt is less crucial. Paula may not have any type of outside support from her family. Richard has a much easier time of receiving financial support from outside institutions as well because the lender realizes that a wealthier family is a better bet for a loan client.

What does any of that have to do with what kind of job she got after she graduated? Having parental financial support means having less debt when you graduate, but has nothing to do with why she's waiting tables instead of working an STEM job.

I hope you aren't trying to suggest that class stratification such as this doesn't exist in the US.

I am indeed. "Class" in the US is arbitrary/bastardized - mostly a myth. Like "poor" and "homeless". As the issue disappeared, the definition had to be adjusted over time to keep the word relevant and today it bears no resemblance to what it used to mean. Know any Indian-Americans? Ask one if they think "class" exists in the US.

Caveat: this cartoon was made in New Zealand. I'm not sure this really accurately represents what life is like in a bottom 5% household in the US.

Who says that Paula is a failure? Perhaps she's simply doing the best that she can with the resources that are available to her.

I say Paula is a failure. She apparently graduated from a technical university and is waiting tables instead of working a $60,000 STEM job. That's failure. And presuming that if there was any societal or bad-luck reason for her failure it would be shown in the cartoon, I am left to conclude that it was her fault.

It really is not a mystery that the upper class in the US has a significantly greater leg up on the lower classes.

The word "class" is meaningless, so I'll rephrase: parents pass things onto their kids. Money. Knowledge. Attitude. These things can either help their kids or hurt them. Based on this cartoon - and I agree, the most important thing separating people is attitude.

That's why the socioeconomic system in the US is so incredibly immobile. It's hard to jump from a lower class to an upper class, and rarely actually happens.

Don't confuse the fact that something doesn't happen with a conclusion that it can't. The US is a free society and as such, there simply are no actual barriers to mobility. The problem in the US that creates the lack of mobility is cultural. It's the attitude.

 

[russ_watters]

By the way;
Yes, I understand that as a matter of convention it is permissible to draw an arbitrary line across an income distribution and label those underneath the line "lower class". But the cruel irony here is: who then made those people "lower class"?

 

[QuantumCurt]

But not enough that it should matter here -- unless since this is a cartoon it is ok to exaggerate. Assuming your first link's claim of a 25% difference is controlled for other factors/life choices (seems unlikely, but don't feel like looking into it more), the girl's father should be in his early to mid 50s when she's graduating from college and his average life expectancy is about 67.

And perhaps more to the point, there should not be much of a correllation between the sick parent and the kid's success/failure. I dated that girl as well (old dad married young mom, dad died when she was in college) and she turned-out fine as well.

But to the girl's father, not to her.

These are all issues that would very easily affect a kid. If the parents don't have health insurance, then the kid isn't going to have it either. Medical cards will only cover so much. The stress of dealing with the health issues of an ailing parent can also easily result in increased stress in the child, leading to health problems of their own. Not to mention that kids with ailing parents often have to devote considerable amounts of time to caring for them, which means they have less time to focus on their schoolwork and building a professional network and such. If Richard's parents were sick (because it turns out that rich people do occasionally get sick too), they're likely to be able to afford professional care. Richard probably won't have to take time away from school to care for them.

You probably can't buy a CRT unless it's 2nd hand, but you miss the point: the point is that the cartoon is being manipulative and dishonest when in one frame it shows the girl sitting on a bare floor in an empty room whereas in the other she's sitting on a couch, watching TV. They directly contradict each other: only one can be true.

I can see your point here, but I don't really think this is a contradiction. Someone can be in poverty without a TV, then save enough to buy a TV eventually while still being in poverty. Both of these scenarios can quite easily be true.

What does any of that have to do with what kind of job she got after she graduated? Having parental financial support means having less debt when you graduate, but has nothing to do with why she's waiting tables instead of working an STEM job.

This is true, and I don't think I stated my point well. I think in many respects this is a weaker point in the whole argument and can't necessarily be tied to class (whether you agree with that term or not) in the same way as some of the other issues. There are many college grads that are unemployed after college, and this isn't in any sense exclusive to the lower classes. I will add that many previous points can be tied in here - Richard is more likely to have gotten connections for obtaining good internships and research experiences. If Richard is studying engineering and Dad is a respected engineer at a top firm, Richard basically has a foot already in the door. This internship is going to look great on his future applications. Paula isn't so likely to have had this 'foot in the door' opportunity that Richard had. That being said, there are many internships available that don't require having an 'in' of any kind. I'm doing an internship at Fermilab this summer, and neither of my parents even have college degrees. Access to resources or connections isn't always a problem. Whether or not it is depends largely on the field in which one is studying. Regardless, it is true in many instances.

I am indeed. "Class" in the US is arbitrary/bastardized - mostly a myth. Like "poor" and "homeless". As the issue disappeared, the definition had to be adjusted over time to keep the word relevant and today it bears no resemblance to what it used to mean. Know any Indian-Americans? Ask one if they think "class" exists in the US.

The class system in the US isn't as extreme as the varnas system in India. Neither is it as extreme as class systems in Japan or many other countries. But a failure to live up to the standards of the more extreme examples doesn't suggest that it doesn't exist. The definition of poverty has changed over time because our economy has changed a great deal over time. The overall standard of living in the US has improved a great deal, and it has improved for nearly every socioeconomic group of people. However, there are still huge numbers of homeless people that are legitimately living on the streets and living off of the metaphorical scraps falling off the table. I took a train through Union Station in Chicago last week and had a 3 hour layover there. I took a walk behind along the river and was approached by 4 different homeless people asking me for spare change within about 5 minutes. This is a very prevalent problem in many areas. Granted, the back of the train station certainly isn't representative of a city as a whole, let alone the nation as a whole. Even in my small hometown of 16,000 people though, there is a large population of homeless people.

Regardless, the fact that our lower class isn't typically living in a house with a mud floor doesn't change the fact of the matter: stratification, or difference in class. The class system of the US is quite distinct from the more extreme class systems in other countries, and it is not as readily acknowledged. People in the US grow up constantly being told that they can do anything they want to do, and are surrounded by rags to riches type stories, that almost never reflect reality. In principle it is entirely possible for someone to come from nothing and hit it big. They come into a lot of wealth and become 'New Money.' The problem is that this isn't really enough to consider them as upper class. The upper class isn't the people with the most monetary wealth, it's the people with the most power and prestige. This often comes from family recognition, or 'Old Money.' This is why there are so many recurring names in politics, Wall Street, and big business. Family connections count for a whole lot in these areas. Even if someone becomes 'New Money,' the chances of them actually laying a foundation and passing this wealth through multiple generations while also gaining the prestige and the name recognition needed to become Old Money are fantastically slim. In principle this is possible. In practice it almost never occurs. The upper upper class is essentially locked. Even the upper middle class is virtually closed to upward mobility because of the simple fact of a lack of family recognition.

Don't confuse the fact that something doesn't happen with a conclusion that it can't. The US is a free society and as such, there simply are no actual barriers to mobility. The problem in the US that creates the lack of mobility is cultural. It's the attitude.

There are countless examples of people who have worked their asses off for their entire life and had a very positive attitude the whole way through. And yet the vast majority of these people have never achieved the upward mobility embodied by the "American Dream." Attitude counts for a lot, but it certainly is not everything. This name recognition matters far more in some areas than it does in others. In STEM fields I'd say it often matters far less. In fields like finance, politics, investment banking, and other related fields, it can matter a great deal. If Richard's dad owns an investment banking firm, his job hunt took him as long as it took to walk across the stage with his diploma. If Paula's dad is a janitor, she's going to have a much harder, and likely much longer job hunt. That could very easily be why she's waiting tables.

 

[russ_watters]

These are all issues that would very easily affect a kid.

Again: not enough that it should matter here. In order for this cartoon to be meaningful it has to be showing typical/common situations. Otherwise, I could just as easily re-write it to show the rich kid getting hit by a bus in the last frame.

If Richard's parents were sick (because it turns out that rich people do occasionally get sick too), they're likely to be able to afford professional care. Richard probably won't have to take time away from school to care for them.

Exactly: So if that's the other side of the coin, they should show it that way.

There are many college grads that are unemployed after college, and this isn't in any sense exclusive to the lower classes. I will add that many previous points can be tied in here - Richard is more likely to have gotten connections for obtaining good internships and research experiences.

"Many", "more likely". How many?(I'll provide, later) Again, if this cartoon is intended to be a commentary on a social reality, it needs to accurately reflect the typical reality.

If Richard is studying engineering and Dad is a respected engineer at a top firm, Richard basically has a foot already in the door. This internship is going to look great on his future applications. Paula isn't so likely to have had this 'foot in the door' opportunity that Richard had. That being said, there are many internships available that don't require having an 'in' of any kind. I'm doing an internship at Fermilab this summer, and neither of my parents even have college degrees.

Agreed. One of the issues I always see with these types of commentaries is the idea of "fairness", though. Richard gets a foot in the door because of his dad. Is that unfair? Would it be more fair to find a way to deny Richard's parents the freedom to help their kids? And does that present a barrier to Paula's success? Why can't we ignore Richard completely here and focus on Paula and the reasons why she failed?

People in the US grow up constantly being told that they can do anything they want to do, and are surrounded by rags to riches type stories, that almost never reflect reality.

Fairy tales are fairy tales and they aren't a counter-point here. We're supposed to be talking about whether this cartoon reflects reality, not whether some other untold stories do.

In principle it is entirely possible for someone to come from nothing and hit it big...

They come into a lot of wealth and become 'New Money.' The problem is that this isn't really enough to consider them as upper class. The upper class isn't the people with the most monetary wealth, it's the people with the most power and prestige.

I can't be bothered with such issues. I can't imagine why i would care how rich people treat other rich people. What matters to me is figuring out how Paula could have taken a path that usually leads to success and right when she got to the end, she failed.

There are countless examples of people who have worked their asses off for their entire life and had a very positive attitude the whole way through. And yet the vast majority of these people have never achieved the upward mobility embodied by the "American Dream." Attitude counts for a lot, but it certainly is not everything.

An attitude needs to be more than just "positive", it needs to be "good". It needs to be focused and pointed in a direction that leads to success. If Paula took a "positive attitude" into art school, her odds of success were very low because she made a stupid decision. Maybe you consider those two different things, but I consider them two parts of the same thing.

That could very easily be why she's waiting tables.

Regardless of the specific reason, the point of my annoyance is due to the fact that if this cartoon is supposed to present social commentary, it should accurately reflect the typical situation. Graduating from college, even if not with an STEM degree provides a near certain path out of poverty. Here's the reality:

Now, the graph was created to focus on inequality, but if you look at what it actually says about the person who started poor, what it says is that a person who starts poor and graduates from college has an 84% chance of getting out of the bottom 20%. That person also has a greater chance of ending up in any other quintile than the bottom or even the second from the bottom. Put another way, the cartoon would have more accurately reflected reality if at the end of the cartoon she has a high-paying Wall Street job instead of a waitressing job.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...etter-than-rich-kids-who-do-everything-wrong/
[Aside: note the title of the article in the link. Note that it's wrong according to the stats. That's the real myth at work here.]

 

[Bandersnatch]

The cartoon suggests that she didn't finish her college due to having to look after an ailing parent/not being able to secure a loan to continue her studies without parental financial support.

 

[DaveC426913]

I won't argue the assertion that there is stratification in the US, but while I was reading the cartoon, my thoughts were that Americans have the right to the pursuit of happiness, not the right to happiness.

In any population, there is an income distribution (this is self-evident - there must be a lowest income, there must be a highest income). So, some people will be at a disadvantage (assuming high income is the success criteria). In my opinion, the issue of stratification comes when we ask if Paula was prevented from pursuing her dreams - despite her efforts - because others saw her as lower class.There's no question that, if you start a race missing a shoe, you will have a harder time winning. The question is, are you free to try? (pursuit of happiness) Or is someone working to disqualify you? (class structure)

 

[russ_watters]

The cartoon suggests that she didn't finish her college due to having to look after an ailing parent/not being able to secure a loan to continue her studies without parental financial support.

I'm not so sure that's what was intended: the loan frames were shown side-by-side and his parents paid for his college, so what does he need a loan for if not for a house? And since it was already established that she was paying for college via loans/a job, there was no need to apply for something she already had.

If she dropped out to care for a sick parent (regardless of the loan issue), that would certainly be a big problem, but it would also be a pretty rare situation and therefore not very helpful for illustrating "class differences".

 

[Evo]

The cartoon suggests that she didn't finish her college due to having to look after an ailing parent/not being able to secure a loan to continue her studies without parental financial support.

In the US, kids with wealthy parents are ineligible for many loans and grants, this hurt my kids when they applied for loans.

 

[jobyts]

More than the fact the the class system exists or whether it is good/bad/ineviteable, the point the author trying to make is Richard's failure to realize the handouts he received in different stages of his life.

My way of looking at the social/economic problems is same as a genie analogy Warren buffett said in one of his talks.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

I say Paula is a failure. She apparently graduated from a technical university and is waiting tables instead of working a $60,000 STEM job. That's failure. And presuming that if there was any societal or bad-luck reason for her failure it would be shown in the cartoon, I am left to conclude that it was her fault.

You think entry-level STEM jobs exist that pay $60k? haha

I think the cartoon is certainly implying that Paula hasn't finished college yet. Having to work at the same time in order to pay for it can really drag it out. So yes, by the time Richard is getting a mortgage, Paula could well be looking for a way to fund her last year of classes.

But what the cartoon is really about is the fact that society is congratulating Richard and patting him on the back for his accomplishments, when in reality he had so much handed to him; while at the same time being quite judgmental of Paula, casting a moral judgment on her character due to her economic situation. Even you are doing it.

Paula was dealt a very different hand of cards, and I think that can be hard to comprehend if you haven't seen it first hand. Yes, her house may very well be "damp"...since this is New Zealand, my guess is that the usage is similar to how it's used in the UK, where it means the house has a condensation problem that causes mold. It causes all kinds of health problems and can be very expensive to repair properly. Paula's family likely has a landlord who refuses to do anything about it, and you may have noticed that exercising the court system to go after said landlord requires resources that Paula doesn't have (time, money). Not to mention that juries tend to be highly judgmental (irony appreciated), and all the landlord's lawyers need to do is subtly attack Paula's character (yes, it's forbidden by the rules of evidence, but oh, it's so easy to do...).

 

[Ben Niehoff]

I am indeed. "Class" in the US is arbitrary/bastardized - mostly a myth. Like "poor" and "homeless".

I'm very curious what you mean by this. Do you think homeless people don't exist? Or poor people? What do you mean?

 

[russ_watters]

You think entry-level STEM jobs exist that pay $60k? haha

I'm sure they do, but the average starting STEM salary is $66k, not $60k (again: US numbers). Yes, I pulled $60k out of the air and was wrong low. My bad.
http://www.burning-glass.com/research/stem/

But what the cartoon is really about is the fact that society is congratulating Richard and patting him on the back for his accomplishments, when in reality he had so much handed to him...

Frankly, that's another pretty stupid part of the cartoon. Who is throwing him a black-tie party? For what? Who does stuff like that?

...while at the same time being quite judgmental of Paula, casting a moral judgment on her character due to her economic situation. Even you are doing it.

Again, I don't think people do that and I most certainly am not. I'm simply looking for a plausiable explanation for her failure, given that she appears to have failed right at the end of her journey when it looks like she should have succeeded.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm very curious what you mean by this. Do you think homeless people don't exist? Or poor people? What do you mean?

Specifically, the definitions/statistics are twisted to make the numbers look much, much larger than they really are based on more logical/traditional definitions. The problem with "poor" is worse in Europe than in the US, for example. In the US at least we use an absolute standard (though we change it yearly for an ever-increasing standard of living). In Europe it is a fixed fraction of median income, which means "poor" is defined in terms of equality not in terms of living conditions. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what the word "poor" actually means.

For "homeless", there are several different measures, some more useful than others. It is common to count "homeless" throughout a year, which vastly overstates the issue because it is often a very temporary thing. It also includes people who are temporarily in transition, like a buddy of mine who planned an apartment transition poorly and had to live with friends for a couple of weeks.

Another one I don't like is "food insecure". But we need that one to measure a hunger problem when hunger doesn't actually exist at any measurable level.

I see you didn't ask me about my problem with "class". Are we agreed that that one is completely arbitrary/useless/meaningless?

 

[russ_watters]

More than the fact the the class system exists...

Please explain: what is "the class system"? How do I measure a person's "class"? What implications are there for being in one "class" or another?

 

[Ben Niehoff]

I see you didn't ask me about my problem with "class". Are we agreed that that one is completely arbitrary/useless/meaningless?

We don't agree, but I didn't bring it up because it seemed obvious that we wouldn't have a useful discussion about it.

To me it seems clear that you are defining "class" differently that what most people mean by it. What do you think "class" means?

 

[Ben Niehoff]

I'm sure they do, but the average starting STEM salary is $66k, not $60k (again: US numbers). Yes, I pulled $60k out of the air and was wrong low. My bad.
http://www.burning-glass.com/research/stem/

Huh? Why have they thrown the entire healthcare industry in with STEM in this study? This makes no sense. And if you look at the charts, the healthcare job postings vastly dominate, and seem to offer a higher average pay. So this skews the average way up. (Medical technology and research are STEM, of course, but this page's salary statistics are also including physicians!)

When I was in college, the higher-ups in the engineering school frequently told us that our engineering degrees would earn us starting salaries of $60k+. Not for all engineering degrees, but certainly for computer engineering, which is what I did. It turns out my school was woefully out of touch, and was over-selling the value of their degrees. I'm pretty sure the only entry-level engineering jobs paying over $60k are for petroleum engineers.

Again, I don't think people do that and I most certainly am not. I'm simply looking for a plausiable explanation for her failure, given that she appears to have failed right at the end of her journey when it looks like she should have succeeded.

You're calling her a "failure" simply for having a waitressing job, and you're asking (in bold print!) what she must have "done wrong" to end up in that situation. Even if we do assume that she has graduated with some technical degree, maybe she wasn't able to find a job in her field in a reasonable amount of time? Maybe her sick father is preventing her from moving across the country for a job. Maybe she doesn't have the resources to wait around for months for the "perfect" job offer, and has to take something in order to put food on the table. The fact that she has had to make practical choices and choose her battles does not make her a "failure" and certainly doesn't mean she "did something wrong".

Presumably she's still in the prime of her life...it seems absurd to be calling her a "failure". Maybe when her father's situation stabilizes a bit, she can focus more on her career. But if hiring managers are going to be judgmental about her having held a waitressing job (as you are being), then she'll have an even tougher time getting a job in her field!

Specifically, the definitions/statistics are twisted to make the numbers look much, much larger than they really are based on more logical/traditional definitions. The problem with "poor" is worse in Europe than in the US, for example. In the US at least we use an absolute standard (though we change it yearly for an ever-increasing standard of living). In Europe it is a fixed fraction of median income, which means "poor" is defined in terms of equality not in terms of living conditions. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what the word "poor" actually means.

"Europe" is a big place, do you have a reference? Although, one issue with the US definition is it doesn't seem to keep up with actual costs of living. The CPI doesn't even include the things that poor people need to buy most, like food. And food prices have risen sharply after 2008.

For "homeless", there are several different measures, some more useful than others. It is common to count "homeless" throughout a year, which vastly overstates the issue because it is often a very temporary thing. It also includes people who are temporarily in transition, like a buddy of mine who planned an apartment transition poorly and had to live with friends for a couple of weeks.

Do you think a very high percentage of "homeless" are people like your friend who are "in transition"? Do you think the fact that there are "different measures, some more useful than others" means that homeless is not a problem or not important?

Another one I don't like is "food insecure". But we need that one to measure a hunger problem when hunger doesn't actually exist at any measurable level.

I guess "I get to eat today!" is not a status you've seen posted on someone's Facebook...

 

[russ_watters]

To me it seems clear that you are defining "class" differently that what most people mean by it. What do you think "class" means?

I thought I was pretty clear in saying I don't think it exists/means anything. That's why I'm asking those who think it exists/means something what they think it means. I can't very well define a concept I don't think exists and I don't think it is unreasonable to ask people to define a word they are using!

 

[russ_watters]

Huh? Why have they thrown the entire healthcare industry in with STEM in this study?

Because doctors and researchers are STEM.

When I was in college, the higher-ups in the engineering school frequently told us that our engineering degrees would earn us starting salaries of $60k+. Not for all engineering degrees, but certainly for computer engineering, which is what I did. It turns out my school was woefully out of touch, and was over-selling the value of their degrees. I'm pretty sure the only entry-level engineering jobs paying over $60k are for petroleum engineers.

You are very badly mistaken.

You're calling her a "failure" simply for having a waitressing job, and you're asking (in bold print!) what she must have "done wrong" to end up in that situation.

Yes, and? I still haven't gotten an answer!

But now we need to define what it means to fail. I define a failure in that situation as and end result that is far below the typical result for that situation. How would you define success/failure there?

And BTW, if we assume she didn't graduate, the same question applies.

These questions and their answers are not personal: I'm not saying she's a failure as a person, just a failure as an STEM student.

Even if we do assume that she has graduated with some technical degree, maybe she wasn't able to find a job in her field in a reasonable amount of time?

And that fits your definition of "success"?

Maybe her sick father is preventing her from moving across the country for a job. Maybe she doesn't have the resources to wait around for months for the "perfect" job offer, and has to take something in order to put food on the table.

All possibilities. That's why I asked!

The fact that she has had to make practical choices and choose her battles does not make her a "failure" and certainly doesn't mean she "did something wrong".

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't: again, that's why I asked. Also, I suggested that logically if society or luck caused it, the cartoon probably would have explicitly said it. But either way, it is possible (better, even), to examine typical reasons.

Presumably she's still in the prime of her life...it seems absurd to be calling her a "failure".

Now you are putting words (meanings) in my mouth I didn't say. I never suggested she's a failure at life, just a failure at realizing the typical outcome of her situation (a STEM student).

 

[Ben Niehoff]

But now we need to define what it means to fail. I define a failure in that situation as and end result that is far below the typical result for that situation. How would you define success/failure there?

I don't think "success vs. failure" is a reasonable way to look at life, precisely because it tends to attach moral judgments to people's economic status, and also tends to overlook circumstances beyond one's control. Plus it's a very black-and-white way of looking at things that obscures the reality of it. If someone gets a degree in field X and then makes a career at doing Y, are they a "success" or a "failure"?

I think it's also a recipe for making people depressed, if they are too concerned over whether they "succeeded" or "failed" at something, rather than looking at the bigger picture. I guess my point is I'm not overly concerned with "grading" people as though life were a standardized test.

These questions and their answers are not personal: I'm not saying she's a failure as a person, just a failure as an STEM student.

...

Now you are putting words (meanings) in my mouth I didn't say. I never suggested she's a failure at life, just a failure at realizing the typical outcome of her situation (a STEM student).

Your original statement was that she was "a failure" (unqualified). So it is not unreasonable to interpret those words as stated. Surely you can correct miscommunications without becoming accusatory.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

I thought I was pretty clear in saying I don't think it exists/means anything. That's why I'm asking those who think it exists/means something what they think it means. I can't very well define a concept I don't think exists and I don't think it is unreasonable to ask people to define a word they are using!

My thought here is that you need to make up your mind. Either there is a specific thing you have in mind which you think does not exist, or you're not sure what the word "class" means.

Do you think languages exist? A very common situation is what's called a "dialectical continuum", where a language varies throughout some region such that neighboring villages can understand each other, but villages widely separated cannot. So a language difference emerges even though locally everyone seems to speak the same language.

Similarly, "class" distinctions are not immutable bins that people fall into. But people who are widely separated can definitely see a difference.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think "success vs. failure" is a reasonable way to look at life, precisely because it tends to attach moral judgments to people's economic status, and also tends to overlook circumstances beyond one's control. Plus it's a very black-and-white way of looking at things that obscures the reality of it. If someone gets a degree in field X and then makes a career at doing Y, are they a "success" or a "failure"?

I think it's also a recipe for making people depressed, if they are too concerned over whether they "succeeded" or "failed" at something, rather than looking at the bigger picture. I guess my point is I'm not overly concerned with "grading" people as though life were a standardized test.

And IMO that's a product of coddling kids too much, giving them all praise and "participation awards" for nothing and causing them to not understand what "success" and "failure" mean. Real life is harsh. If people don't set goals and then judge themselves pass/fail against those goals, ten years later they look back/up from a situation they don't like and wonder how they got there.

Yes, failure to accept/utilize the concept of failure leads to failure.

Your original statement was that she was "a failure" (unqualified). So it is not unreasonable to interpret those words as stated. Surely you can correct miscommunications without becoming accusatory.

Not only was that not the first usage, the context should be clear from literally every other sentence around it. By the same token, I'd appreciate if the default assumptions about my thoughts weren't so negative.

 

[russ_watters]

My thought here is that you need to make up your mind. Either there is a specific thing you have in mind which you think does not exist, or you're not sure what the word "class" means.

It isn't my thread or my choice to use the word. If someone asks in the physics section if time travel exists, the typical answer is "depends on what you mean by time travel".

Frankly, I think this little cat and mouse game proves my point. The term is used because it has impact, but it doesn't have any real meaning.

Similarly, "class" distinctions are not immutable bins that people fall into. But people who are widely separated can definitely see a difference.

So you are saying there are no clear lines. There used to be and are in other countries that still have "classes".

 

[BobG]

Terrible.

For the cartoon itself, I found a few quality issues:
1. The lack of symetry between the two "dad" scenes (why was only the poor one sick?) felt manipulative.
2. I realize the chronology was non-linear to enable the "punchline" to be last, but it makes less sense that way.
3. "Paula's house is full of people and not much else"...except a flat-screen TV. "It's damp"? Damp? Really?
4. My first thought after reading this was "what did she do wrong that she ended up with a job as a waitress after getting a degree from 'polytech'?" Does "polytech" offer a degree in Art History?

I think the point is that it's harder for low income people to complete their degrees - with the main factor being time. If you're working full time, it's going to be extremely difficult to complete a STEM degree as quickly as a person that can devote all of their time to being a full time student. And it's that extended time that gives one the opportunity to experience extra outside challenges (with a sick parent being a lot more sympathetic example than "getting knocked up and becoming a single parent working full time and trying to complete a degree part time"). What the outside challenge is is beside the point. There will be more of them the longer one spends as a full time worker/part time student.

It can be very non-linear. I spent 20 years in the Air Force. Many military personnel eventually get a degree. On top of taking fewer classes per semester and having their education disrupted by TDYs, deployments, remote assignments, etc, they have to complete more credit hours to get their degree than the average student. Every time they relocate and continue their education in a new college/university, they lose a few credits that the new college simply won't accept (the same is true for any transfer student, but a full time student probably won't attend as many colleges as a part time student that relocates often).

Of course, if one is spending 20 years in the military and their degree is related to what they did during their military career, time is one thing they definitely have. And with a rainbow at the end: they're not an engineer freshly out of college with no experience - they're an engineer with 20 years experience in their field, even if not on the engineering side of things. So that's not a perfect analogy to the situation depicted in the cartoon.

But I do tend to have a lot of sympathy for students that go the full time worker/part time student route. It can be a pretty tough route to go and a lot simply won't complete it.

In fact, I worked in a field that required pretty high ASVAB scores to get into even as enlisted. The overwhelming majority of the people I worked with had the intellectual ability to not only complete a degree, but to complete a pretty tough engineering degree, probably with honors. They had the benefit of reasonably generous tuition assistance from the military (definitely enough for state colleges, even if not coming close to being enough for elite private colleges). I'm shocked how many retire with either a very weak degree that says "I completed something" or even with no degree at all. Life, raising kids, golf, etc just kept getting in their way and it was easy to lose motivation for something that wasn't going to benefit them immediately.

Time is a pretty big adversary when it comes to completing college. Being able to devote four or five years to full time study before one starts "life" with marriage, kids, mortgages, etc. is a pretty nice gift that all are not going to receive.

 

[Tobias Funke]

More than the fact the the class system exists or whether it is good/bad/ineviteable, the point the author trying to make is Richard's failure to realize the handouts he received in different stages of his life.

That's my interpretation as well. It's a very straightforward cartoon and I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the point is that it's harder for low income people to complete their degrees - with the main factor being time. If you're working full time, it's going to be extremely difficult to complete a STEM degree as quickly as a person that can devote all of their time to being a full time student. And it's that extended time that gives one the opportunity to experience extra outside challenges (with a sick parent being a lot more sympathetic example than "getting knocked up and becoming a single parent working full time and trying to complete a degree part time"). What the outside challenge is is beside the point. There will be more of them the longer one spends as a full time worker/part time student.

It can be very non-linear. I spent 20 years in the Air Force. Many military personnel eventually get a degree. On top of taking fewer classes per semester and having their education disrupted by TDYs, deployments, remote assignments, etc, they have to complete more credit hours to get their degree than the average student...

My journey was also non-typical and not too dissimilar to yours. So I certainly get that timelines can vary, but if I were to make a comic strip of my journey to adulthood, it wouldn't end with a shot of me chipping paint on the deck of a frigate at age 26, it would end with me sitting behind a desk at my first engineering job at age 27.

So I agree that it is tough to put people in "boxes" -- which is also part of what I don't like about the strip or more specifically, it's title. It is saying that for people in "class x", life goes this way and for people in "class y", life goes that way ("class x" and "class y" as yet undefined). If it just titled more vaguely that some people have an easier path than others, sure, I'd agree -- but I also believe that it wouldn't have been interesting/profound enough to get posted here: That's too obvious/pointless of a point to make.

More on the still undefined "class" thing:
If people want to define "class" according to income, that might be a potentially objective measure, but it is still deeply flawed and doesn't relate well to the cartoon:

I know people who's parents were above average in income and didn't help their kids at all in paying for college and others who went to service academies or enlisted first in the Navy, where it is free. And to Evo's point: there is a "doughnut hole" that covers an awfully large fraction of the population who's parents make too much to qualify for financial aid, yet paying for college outright is a serious hardship. And I know someone who's father died while she was in college and her mom cut her off financially, resulting in a sudden need for her to pay for the rest of her schooling (and her younger brother, all of his schooling). And I know someone (again, parents above average income) who got a masters' degree from an expensive school in something useless and now works at a grocery store with $80k in student loan debt.

My point is that hardships can happen at all levels and for a variety of reasons: and none of those stories - nor Paula's - have anything to do with "class".

For Paula, if, indeed she delayed college to care for her sick father and that resulted in her losing her student loans/aid, she'll have to decide for herself if she made the right decision. Do you [all] think her father would think it was the right decision?

Interesting article here that tracks four "Paulas" in their journey through college that ended with a total of zero degrees:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/e...ater-role-in-success.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

There are a lot of mis-steps along the way and the stories bear some similarities to Paula's. While not all of the events that happened were of their own making, their own decisions weigh very heavily on the results. If indeed we are being told that Paula did not finish college, then the sympathetic story we are being told about why becomes less connected to reality.

...also setting aside the fact that completing "some college" should still put Paula well above her parents in earnings potential.

Interestingly, clicking on the link to the whole strip now takes you to a comment from a reader who felt personally insulted by it: he started in the column on the right and ended in the column on the left because, according to him, his family "espoused hard work and high expectations" and didn't let those same sort of hardships get in the way of that.

 

[russ_watters]

That's my interpretation as well. It's a very straightforward cartoon and I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Well,
1. "Class" is still undefined.
2. If the cartoon is all about Richard, why bother putting Paula in it at all? If there is going to be contrast for the sake of contrast, it should represent some reality.

With the two issues above, if it is all about Richard, to me the cartoon doesn't say anything useful about anything. Its just a fictional story with no value. Are there Richards in the real world who don't realize how good they have it? Sure. Are there Richards who do? Definitely. So what?

 

[BobG]

Interestingly, clicking on the link to the whole strip now takes you to a comment from a reader who felt personally insulted by it: he started in the column on the right and ended in the column on the left because, according to him, his family "espoused hard work and high expectations" and didn't let those same sort of hardships get in the way of that.

I think the only issue I have with what he says is that he feels insulted by the cartoon.

For many: of course it's hard. Like the Tom Hanks character said in the movie, "A League of Their Own":

"Of course it's hard! Hard is good! If it weren't hard, then anyone could do it! And then they'd only pay you minimum wage to do it!"

Mmmm, maybe I didn't quite remember the exact words he used. But I think that's what he meant.

Overcoming hardships is a reason to be proud of one's accomplishments. I don't think identifying that hardships can prevent success for many people is a reason to be insulted.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Well,
1. "Class" is still undefined.
2. If the cartoon is all about Richard, why bother putting Paula in it at all? If there is going to be contrast for the sake of contrast, it should represent some reality.

With the two issues above, if it is all about Richard, to me the cartoon doesn't say anything useful about anything. Its just a fictional story with no value. Are there Richards in the real world who don't realize how good they have it? Sure. Are there Richards who do? Definitely. So what?

I think just about everything you said has been answered by someone else, but I'll note that you never defined "reality" and I highly doubt that you can without being circular, but everybody seems to know what you mean. Is this one of Plato's dialogues where we spend all our time trying to define "good" or "virtue" or "temperence"?

 

[Vanadium 50]

The problem with the "I know it when I see it definition" is that when you are talking about mobility, it matters how many classes there are: obviously the more classes you consider, the higher the degree of mobility. I've seen as few as 3 and as many as 30. Certainly just looking at a single number does not capture the whole picture: a person with a net worth of a million dollars at age 25 is very different than someone with a net worth of one million dollars at age 65.

 

[russ_watters]

For many: of course it's hard. Like the Tom Hanks character said in the movie, "A League of Their Own":

"Of course it's hard! Hard is good! If it weren't hard, then anyone could do it! And then they'd only pay you minimum wage to do it!"

I only know one quote from that movie and that wasn't it - but I like it.

I think the only issue I have with what he says is that he feels insulted by the cartoon...

Overcoming hardships is a reason to be proud of one's accomplishments. I don't think identifying that hardships can prevent success for many people is a reason to be insulted.

It's a potential double-insult:
1. Paul didn't work hard for what he got.
2. Paul doesn't recognize how easy he had it - he's ungrateful.

It's worse for someone who ends up in column A while starting in column B because - as we all apparently agree - that tends to be the hardest of the routes. For someone who started and finished in column A, it might only be one insult; maybe he really was handed everything he got on a silver platter and didn't work hard for it. But obviously that's not necessarily true even of people who's entire path was in column A.

 

[russ_watters]

I think just about everything you said has been answered by someone else, but I'll note that you never defined "reality" and I highly doubt that you can without being circular, but everybody seems to know what you mean. Is this one of Plato's dialogues where we spend all our time trying to define "good" or "virtue" or "temperence"?

Huh?

 

[russ_watters]

Missed this before:

"Europe" is a big place, do you have a reference?

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/factbook-2010-en/11/02/02/index.html?itemId=/content/chapter/factbook-2010-89-en

Avoiding economic hardship is a primary objective of social policy. As perceptions of "a decent standard of living" vary across countries and over time, no commonly agreed measure of "absolute" poverty across OECD countries exists. A starting point for measuring poverty is therefore to look at "relative" poverty, whose measure is based on the income that is most typical in each country in each year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Relative_poverty

Relative poverty is the "most useful measure for ascertaining poverty rates in wealthy developed nations."[46][47][48][49][50] Relative poverty measure is used by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD) and Canadian poverty researchers.[46][47][48][49][50] In the European Union, the "relative poverty measure is the most prominent and most–quoted of the EU social inclusion indicators."[51]

"Relative poverty reflects better the cost of social inclusion and equality of opportunity in a specific time and space."[52]

"Once economic development has progressed beyond a certain minimum level, the rub of the poverty problem – from the point of view of both the poor individual and of the societies in which they live – is not so much the effects of poverty in any absolute form but the effects of the contrast, daily perceived, between the lives of the poor and the lives of those around them. For practical purposes, the problem of poverty in the industrialized nations today is a problem of relative poverty (page 9)."

So that last bit is basically saying that "poverty" as the word is typically defined doesn't really exist in a meaningfully large quantity in Western countries, so in order to keep the word useful, they had to choose a broader definition. Fortunately, by tying the measure of it to a fraction of median income, poverty can never go away.

The problem, of course, with using a relative measure of poverty is that when the economy crashes like it did for most western countries in 2008-10, the poverty rate goes down, not up. And when the economy grows, the poverty rate goes up. We have a detailed thread discussing with this problem including the OECD's inventing new stats to temporarily replace the flawed measure at times when it is most flawed. I can find it for you if you are really interested.

Although, one issue with the US definition is it doesn't seem to keep up with actual costs of living. The CPI doesn't even include the things that poor people need to buy most, like food.

Sorry, but that's all wrong too:
http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm#Question_7

Do you think the fact that there are "different measures, some more useful than others" means that homeless is not a problem or not important?

No, all I'm saying is it just isn't necessarily what people think it is -- like poverty and "class".

 

[russ_watters]

The problem with the "I know it when I see it definition" is that when you are talking about mobility, it matters how many classes there are: obviously the more classes you consider, the higher the degree of mobility. I've seen as few as 3 and as many as 30...

Well, right now the most popular (in the US) seems to be two: The 1% and The 99%. That wouldn't work for this cartoon, though.

Anyway, I think the "I know it when I see it" definition is ok for abstract things like art, music and porn, but when a thing is supposed to be objectively identifiable and have clear consequences, it needs a clear and preferably quantitative definition. At least with "poor", people attach some sort of logic and quantification to it. Even if not everyone agrees on the particular criteria, an identified and consistent criteria enables a starting point for a discussion and tracking the issue through time.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Huh?

Is it really that confusing? You used the word "reality". Define it! Or don't, but don't demand something like a mathematically rigorous definition of a word that just about everyone else seems to comprehend for the sole purpose of trying to deconstruct it with feel-good "counterexamples" and personal anecdotes.

I think you're trying to have it both ways by claiming that other countries have or had classes (or "classes" with scare quotes) but then saying you don't think class is a meaningful concept. It must mean something to you or you would have no basis for saying that, yet you refused to define it.

 

[Czcibor]

Socioeconomic class has been pretty closely tied to overall health and life expectancy. People in lower socioeconomic classes tend to have much greater levels of stress which can be a great contributor to a range of health problems. In addition, life expectancy in the wealthier classes tends to be greater. See here and https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-wsh.aspx . This is why the poor one is portrayed as sick; because it's typical of differences that exist between these two social classes. Less access to medical care, aside from just the stress, is a significant contributor here as well.

I'm impressed that when you compared differences between classes life expectancy you somehow managed to omit differences in caloric intake and cigarettes smoked...

EDIT:
I've got one more idea:
-the poor kid should have come from a single parent household, which according to demographical data would be one of many areas where is a class difference between rich and poor in the US society...
...or that would be thought provoking in the wrong direction? ;)