Educational inequality, and high pay

[SpineyNorman]

Are we suggesting that the UK should be a meritocracy? I was under the impression that many consider such an ideal as 'arbitrary' and therefore not a principle to agree on.

If you have differences in pay then you will have some who pay for a private tutor for their kids too. Is this 'fair' on those whose families cannot afford to do so? Probably not. Is this going to ever change? Only while people are paid different wages - and even if they are paid the same, some will still allocate their scarce resources to ensuring their kids get the best they can - so we are left again with children who are unlucky enough to have parents who don't wish to allocate their resources in this way losing out.

In other words, working towards equality is a fine principle (IMO) but there is a limit on how much you can force people to be the same.

Why do liberals and other right wingers always assume that "equal" means "the same"? This is politics, not mathematics.

 

[Gmart]

Why do liberals and other right wingers always assume that "equal" means "the same"? This is politics, not mathematics.

True, however I am pointing out that if you allow different wages then the richer section of society may well choose to allocate these resources to the education of their kids - it is thus deemed 'unfair' that rich kids have a better education.

It would be better to accept that there will always be differentials, and that therefore we need to develop a policy which accepts that some people will be paid more than others, sometimes a lot more...

I have no problem with footballers getting paid as much as they do - they provide a scarce skill which is highly valued by society, and therefore the market.

What I think people are upset by is the privilege that our system maintains - one rule for one set of people, one rule for another. If we can agree on that principle at least we might be getting somewhere.

It has to be rationality straight down the line, the privilege systems must not simply be replaced with another privilege system - that would be a waste of an opportunity for change.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I'm not happy about anyone getting £100,000 a week, especially when the people who buy the tickets to pay their wages take 10 years to earn it. And especially when we're also cutting the lifeline to the most vulnerable people in our society. Nobody "earns" £100k a week, especially for 2 hours training a day and 2 matches a week maximum - doing a job most lads would pay the club to do.

And it is unfair that rich kids get a better education.

That's the problem with your "meritocracy" - there really is no divide between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, nor can there be. That's an insurmountable obstacle to people with your politics, and you've essentially just admitted as much.

And who has ever said we should replace one privilege system with another? (Except you, but since I really really don't want the whole tedious constitution debate again I'm we'll leave that one).

And don't you see how having the same laws for everyone can be incredibly unfair? It's a vulgar example, but neither the rich man nor the poor man can steal bread to stop his family starving. Anyone can legally set up a business. And you can have homophobic legislation that still adheres to your principles - neither the gay man nor the straight man is allowed to have sex with another man.

 

[Gmart]

[...]And you can have homophobic legislation that still adheres to your principles - neither the gay man nor the straight man is allowed to have sex with another man.

Interesting example considering that you requested an example of a constitutional court striking down a law as unconstitutional, and I gave you the Supreme Court striking down the Texas law against sodomy. My solution would mitigate exactly such local laws.

So you are aware as to my solution there.

As far as high pay goes, who are you to decide what one person decides to pay another? If they wish to do so, I do not see a victim drawing attention to anything which needs to be addressed. Isn't there enough suffering in the world to concentrate on without creating yet more issues which the government 'should' get involved with?

And who are you to tell people how to spend their money - again, no victim there either.

A meritocracy, like any ideal is easily dismissed, but I would prefer to work towards the ideal of those who work hard succeeding and those who don't not. It is part of us working towards a 'fair' world - another ideal there.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Can't be bothered to read that. You're the most tiresome person in the world.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Interesting example considering that you requested an example of a constitutional court striking down a law as unconstitutional, and I gave you the Supreme Court striking down the Texas law against sodomy. My solution would mitigate exactly such local laws.

So you are aware as to my solution there.

As far as high pay goes, who are you to decide what one person decides to pay another? If they wish to do so, I do not see a victim drawing attention to anything which needs to be addressed. Isn't there enough suffering in the world to concentrate on without creating yet more issues which the government 'should' get involved with?

And who are you to tell people how to spend their money - again, no victim there either.

A meritocracy, like any ideal is easily dismissed, but I would prefer to work towards the ideal of those who work hard succeeding and those who don't not. It is part of us working towards a 'fair' world - another ideal there.

I don't know why I'm bothering to be honest, but that wasn't an argument against a written constitution - your obsession just makes you think it is. It's rather your Kantian view of justice, the idea that the same rules applied perfectly consistently to everyone will by definition be just. It won't. Quite the opposite more often than not.

And who gets to decide who's working hard? Who gets to decide what constitutes "work" and do you not think there might sometimes be social reasons for people being less motivated? It's Thatcherite sink or swim bollocks and you're such a fucking dullard that you've convinced yourself it's "progressive".

Where did I say I wanted to tell people how they should spend their money?

You single issue cunt.

 

[SpineyNorman]

If someone wants to sell themselves into slavery who are we to say they shouldn't? I mean, it's just two people acting as individuals making an equal exchange.

Equally, who are we to tell people they can't employ children to sweep chimneys? Again, equal exchange between two rational actors.

There are no pre-existing power dynamics that make these relationships unequal. If you're a liberal there is no need for context, no need for social reality. Just abstract arguments that bare no relationship to reality.

Why do we have a minimum wage? Surely if the worker wants to sell his labour for a lower rate and the employer wants to buy it at the same rate, that's just an equal exchange between two consenting individuals, right? Who am I to say they shouldn't do it. I mean, it's not like the differing social and economic positions of the two actors make any difference. They're both free to choose not to make the contract. Only a freedom hating authoritarian would point the elephant in the room - class. The fact that if the worker doesn't make the deal he starves, whereas the employer can just go and employ someone else. That's just a false argument made by wannabe tyrants.

It's a good job we have Gmart here to tell us where we're going wrong. Otherwise we'd be relying on useless things like the experience of real life and the impact market relations have on this, or on useless crap like scholarly studies and well established social and economic theory.

Thank fuck for Gmart, our saviour telling us where we're going wrong. I bet none of us had heard these oversimplistic arguments and dismissed them as the bollocks they are before he came along.