Does America have a caste system?

[GMDino]

(01-30-2018, 01:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't see the two as exclusive. If anyone can succeed, then that means that you just need to do it. But if everyone does it, then some won't succeed, even if motivated and doing what should work.

Capitalism is a system in which there will be winners and losers, but our social safety net acts as if that is not the case.

And define "success".

I don't make millions, but I have a good job, loving family, etc.  I think I am "successful" without basing it all on how high up the social / economic ladder I get.

I could be MORE successful in an economic sense and we are working toward that.  But, to me, that doesn't define my success in the system.

[fredtoast]

(01-30-2018, 01:16 PM)Au165 Wrote: I think most believe anyone can succeed, not that everyone can succeed. 

But when we talk about social policy people argue that the ONLY reason some people fail is because they don't try hard enough.  The system guarantees there will be losers no matter how hard everyone tries.  So you can't blame the losers for failing when the system guarantees that some will fail.

This is why we have certain people who "demonize" the losers in society.  It makes them feel better being cruel to the losers if they feel like it is all the losers fault.  So they refuse to acknowledge that there will be losers in a capitalist system no matter how hard everyone tries.

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2018, 01:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: And define "success".

I don't make millions, but I have a good job, loving family, etc.  I think I am "successful" without basing it all on how high up the social / economic ladder I get.

I could be MORE successful in an economic sense and we are working toward that.  But, to me, that doesn't define my success in the system.

Well, if we are talking about economic systems then we would be talking about economic success. However, even defining just that one aspect would be difficult.

[Au165]

(01-30-2018, 01:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't see the two as exclusive. If anyone can succeed, then that means that you just need to do it. But if everyone does it, then some won't succeed, even if motivated and doing what should work.

Capitalism is a system in which there will be winners and losers, but our social safety net acts as if that is not the case.

In the context of this thread and Fred's post they are separate. Everyone based on Fred's example was based around the idea of "no losers" and avoiding furthering this narrative, however this thread is based around castes and the idea that certain people are precluded from succeeding which led to my anyone comment. 


Again as I said, anyone is capable of succeeding however everyone can not succeed.

[Au165]

(01-30-2018, 01:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But when we talk about social policy people argue that the ONLY reason some people fail is because they don't try hard enough.  The system guarantees there will be losers no matter how hard everyone tries.  So you can't blame the losers for failing when the system guarantees that some will fail.

This is why we have certain people who "demonize" the losers in society.  It makes them feel better being cruel to the losers if they feel like it is all the losers fault.  So they refuse to acknowledge that there will be losers in a capitalist system no matter how hard everyone tries.

You can blame a "loser" that never tried, however a "loser" that tried and failed should be afforded the safety nets we have in place (and probably better ones are required). The issue is the line between those who try and fail and those who don't try (or pretend to try) can be blurry at times.

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2018, 01:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: In the context of this thread and Fred's post they are separate. Everyone based on Fred's example was based around the idea of "no losers" and avoiding furthering this narrative, however this thread is based around castes and the idea that certain people are precluded from succeeding which led to my anyone comment. 


Again as I said, anyone is capable of succeeding however everyone can not succeed.

But if not everyone can, then not everyone has the ability, and if not everyone has the ability then not anyone has the ability.

[fredtoast]

(01-30-2018, 01:46 PM)Au165 Wrote: You can blame a "loser" that never tried, however a "loser" that tried and failed should be afforded the safety nets we have in place (and probably better ones are required).  The issue is the line between those who try and fail and those who don't try (or pretend to try) can be blurry at times.

Exactly.

Another point that a lot of people refuse to admit is that there are a lot of people with a lot of money who never tried either.

When you take all of this into account it is hard to start basing social policy on who tries compared to who doesn't try.

[Au165]

(01-30-2018, 01:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly.

Another point that a lot of people refuse to admit is that there are a lot of people with a lot of money who never tried either.

When you take all of this into account it is hard to start basing social policy on who tries compared to who doesn't try.

Not that hard. Do the people with a lot of money who didn't try need a social safety net? Social programs are not meant for the fortunate but rather the unfortunate. The try vs try not argument doesn't pertain to success only what we have deemed for this conversation "failure". If you were successful without trying then you cast no burden to society, it is not "my job" to support you if you have money. If you failed while trying then I believe we as a society should support you. If you failed without ever trying then you made a conscious decision to be defeated in which case that decision was yours to be a burden on society and therefor no longer societies responsibility to support you.

This is why I prefer systems in which those receiving benefits are required to do things like community service and similar activities if they are unable to work. I would even go so far as saying I'd be okay if they simply pursued additional education opportunities so that one day maybe they could contribute in other ways through advancements in science, art, or entrepreneurship.

[Au165]

(01-30-2018, 01:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But if not everyone can, then not everyone has the ability, and if not everyone has the ability then not anyone has the ability.

The limited amount of "spots" doesn't mean everyone wasn't eligible to attempt to obtain those spots. In a race anyone in the race is eligible to win, however only one person can win. Anyone can win a race by virtue of being in it (no matter how long the odds), however everyone can not win due to the limited number of spots at the top of the podium.

[fredtoast]

(01-30-2018, 03:36 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not that hard. Do the people with a lot of money who didn't try need a social safety net? Social programs are not meant for the fortunate but rather the unfortunate. The try vs try not argument doesn't pertain to success only what we have deemed for this conversation "failure". If you were successful without trying then you cast no burden to society, it is not "my job" to support you if you have money. If you failed while trying then I believe we as a society should support you. If you failed without ever trying then you made a conscious decision to be defeated in which case that decision was yours to be a burden on society and therefor no longer societies responsibility to support you.

1.  Theory is easy.  Reality is very complicated.  who monitors and decides who is trying hard enough and who is not.

2.  The reason I mentioned the wealthy is because they are the ones who will pay the most in taxes to pay for social programs.  And I always here "Why should these people who worked hard for their money have to pay taxes to pay for the poor?".  It is all part of the same propaganda  to demonize the poor and worship the wealthy.

Good people have money.
Bad people are poor.

[Au165]

(01-30-2018, 04:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  Theory is easy.  Reality is very complicated.  who monitors and decides who is trying hard enough and who is not.

2.  The reason I mentioned the wealthy is because they are the ones who will pay the most in taxes to pay for social programs.  And I always here "Why should these people who worked hard for their money have to pay taxes to pay for the poor?".  It is all part of the same propaganda  to demonize the poor and worship the wealthy.

Good people have money.
Bad people are poor.

That is why things like requiring people to search for, and attempt to get, jobs is part of the unemployment benefits process. I think this needs to be checked a bit more as there is a lot of fraud in this area. I'd like to add a secondary requirement here of some sort of community service weekly during the unemployed period so there is a sense of "earning" it. I think mentally it is good for those receiving the benefit as well as those helping support it that society is better off because of their time on unemployment. 

I am not in this belief group so I don't really have much to add here. I was more so discussing it in context for need of social programs for poor vs rich.