There's an interesting post here:
http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/201 ... n-the-u-s/
Basically it's one of those all-encompassing social-theory essays you occasionally see (The Gervais Principle, etc). I find that I pretty much agree with it, and it's relatively new and relatively thorough, but would be interested in hearing other people's opinions. I know these types of essays are pretty popular and Jacob has written some himself.
3 Ladder Social System
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
Very intersting indeed, thanks for posting
Some quibbles:
- JM Greer posted that the communities were not "taken away" but intentionally abandoned by the citizens.
So hm, L or G could reestablish communities if they would love to.
- unprecedented food production is undeniable something good? Not sure about that one - it doesn´t get distributed to "everybody" and it might stimulate more population.
- It appears to me that the author does not take todays energy demands and declining fossil fuels into account, which could alter his discussion about Malthusian stages
- And if I read that article right - if push comes to shove it´s going to be L against G with E-1´s laughing at the sidelines - not necessarily a win situation for aspiring Ere-istas.
Some quibbles:
- JM Greer posted that the communities were not "taken away" but intentionally abandoned by the citizens.
So hm, L or G could reestablish communities if they would love to.
- unprecedented food production is undeniable something good? Not sure about that one - it doesn´t get distributed to "everybody" and it might stimulate more population.
- It appears to me that the author does not take todays energy demands and declining fossil fuels into account, which could alter his discussion about Malthusian stages
- And if I read that article right - if push comes to shove it´s going to be L against G with E-1´s laughing at the sidelines - not necessarily a win situation for aspiring Ere-istas.
Thanks for the link m. I really enjoyed it and I am 100%, ok 99.9999%, in agreement with Mr. Church. I'm G2 with a goal of being G1, so obviously I have a bias of some sort.
Some of what jumps out to me:
"These depressions, in my view, come from economic progress itself (and moreover, our inability to manage growth in a way that distributes prosperity, rather than displacing people)."
It's interesting because I'm reading Aftershock (Robert Reich) right now and he sites a very intersting statistic: the highest disparity in wealth happened in 1928 and 2007 (he notes that he does not have any info after 2007 at the time of the book). That can't be coincidence.
"The Gentry believes that it is the deserving elite and the face of the future, and that it can use culture to engineer a future in which its values are elite; while the upper tier of the Elite finds the Gentry pretentious, repugnant, self-indulgent, and subversive. The relationship between the Gentry and Elite is incredibly contentious. It’s a cosmic, ubiquitous war between the past and the future."
"Between the Gentry and Labor, there is an attitude of distrust. The Elite has been running a divide-and-conquer strategy between these two categories for decades. This works because the Elite understands (and can ape) the culture of the Gentry, but has something in common with Labor that sets the categories apart from the Gentry: a conception of work as a theater for masculine dominance."
"...the Elite wants Labor think the Gentry intends to conspire with the Underclass to dismantle Labor values and elevate these “obviously undeserving” people to, at least, the status of Labor if not promoted above them."
This is completely true. The majority of my family (uncles/aunts) are labor and small town residents, and they are far more concerned with someone getting a $400 welfare check or being looked down upon by educated people, than a CEO destroying billions of wealth, laying off thousands, and then taking his/her golden parachute of millions.
I think this ties in nicely to the anti-science view that seems to dominate labor.
"The Elite exploit and despise Labor as a class comprised mostly of “useful idiots”. How does Labor see the Elite? They don’t. The Elite has managed to convince Labor that the Gentry (who are open about their cultural elitism, while the Elite hides its social and economic elitism) is the actual “liberal elite” responsible for Labor’s misery over the past 30 years."
I'm not even sure my labor relatives believe E1's exist, let alone are using them.
............
An interesting book to read with Church's premises in mind is the new one from Michael Lewis, Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World. I highly recommend it. Easy read and fun read. He does a good job of capturing the big ideas that matter. You can easily see the following in the book:
Iceland crash = E3's trying to become E1
Greek crash = L4/L3/L2/L1 the main cause with some E3/G4/G3/G2
US crash = E1's and E3's trying to become E1
Ireland = E1-3's
Some of what jumps out to me:
"These depressions, in my view, come from economic progress itself (and moreover, our inability to manage growth in a way that distributes prosperity, rather than displacing people)."
It's interesting because I'm reading Aftershock (Robert Reich) right now and he sites a very intersting statistic: the highest disparity in wealth happened in 1928 and 2007 (he notes that he does not have any info after 2007 at the time of the book). That can't be coincidence.
"The Gentry believes that it is the deserving elite and the face of the future, and that it can use culture to engineer a future in which its values are elite; while the upper tier of the Elite finds the Gentry pretentious, repugnant, self-indulgent, and subversive. The relationship between the Gentry and Elite is incredibly contentious. It’s a cosmic, ubiquitous war between the past and the future."
"Between the Gentry and Labor, there is an attitude of distrust. The Elite has been running a divide-and-conquer strategy between these two categories for decades. This works because the Elite understands (and can ape) the culture of the Gentry, but has something in common with Labor that sets the categories apart from the Gentry: a conception of work as a theater for masculine dominance."
"...the Elite wants Labor think the Gentry intends to conspire with the Underclass to dismantle Labor values and elevate these “obviously undeserving” people to, at least, the status of Labor if not promoted above them."
This is completely true. The majority of my family (uncles/aunts) are labor and small town residents, and they are far more concerned with someone getting a $400 welfare check or being looked down upon by educated people, than a CEO destroying billions of wealth, laying off thousands, and then taking his/her golden parachute of millions.
I think this ties in nicely to the anti-science view that seems to dominate labor.
"The Elite exploit and despise Labor as a class comprised mostly of “useful idiots”. How does Labor see the Elite? They don’t. The Elite has managed to convince Labor that the Gentry (who are open about their cultural elitism, while the Elite hides its social and economic elitism) is the actual “liberal elite” responsible for Labor’s misery over the past 30 years."
I'm not even sure my labor relatives believe E1's exist, let alone are using them.
............
An interesting book to read with Church's premises in mind is the new one from Michael Lewis, Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World. I highly recommend it. Easy read and fun read. He does a good job of capturing the big ideas that matter. You can easily see the following in the book:
Iceland crash = E3's trying to become E1
Greek crash = L4/L3/L2/L1 the main cause with some E3/G4/G3/G2
US crash = E1's and E3's trying to become E1
Ireland = E1-3's
@Marlene
"- unprecedented food production is undeniable something good? Not sure about that one - it doesn´t get distributed to "everybody" and it might stimulate more population."
I don't think this stimulates population in the long run. No first world country currently has an increasing population from internal birthrates. The U.S. is about the only first world country with an increasing population and that is almost exclusively caused by immigration.
The distribution is a problem, but the countries that don't get access to cheap food have the highest birth rates.
"- It appears to me that the author does not take todays energy demands and declining fossil fuels into account, which could alter his discussion about Malthusian stages"
I think declining fossil fuels would actually support his arguments. The current battle between those that want to move away from fossil fuels (Gentry) and those that fight tooth and nail to keep them (Labor) is a prime example of E1's using an issue to split the two groups that could drastically hurt E1's.
"- unprecedented food production is undeniable something good? Not sure about that one - it doesn´t get distributed to "everybody" and it might stimulate more population."
I don't think this stimulates population in the long run. No first world country currently has an increasing population from internal birthrates. The U.S. is about the only first world country with an increasing population and that is almost exclusively caused by immigration.
The distribution is a problem, but the countries that don't get access to cheap food have the highest birth rates.
"- It appears to me that the author does not take todays energy demands and declining fossil fuels into account, which could alter his discussion about Malthusian stages"
I think declining fossil fuels would actually support his arguments. The current battle between those that want to move away from fossil fuels (Gentry) and those that fight tooth and nail to keep them (Labor) is a prime example of E1's using an issue to split the two groups that could drastically hurt E1's.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
I'm going to have to side with Jason on this one (although not quite as eloquently 
. The true point of the article comes out when he gets to the Elites. They're all evil? It also seemed to me that he dumped on the top tier of each ladder. Why is that? It's like a weird Pareto application--you can only be 80% successful, any more than that and you're evil (unless you're lucky enough to have another ladder to jump to).
As Marlene put it, some quibbles:
Where are the facts? (The one fact I saw, that 20% of americans hold a college degree, is incorrect. The number is now over 30%.)
I don't agree that Gentry skew left and Elite skew right. Most statistical research shows that each class is basically split down the middle in this regard.
Why does he even use percentages if he admits he's only guessing?
And *why* exactly does he make the "uniform moral assumption" that all E1's are evil? Because some are? Or because they must be?
. The true point of the article comes out when he gets to the Elites. They're all evil? It also seemed to me that he dumped on the top tier of each ladder. Why is that? It's like a weird Pareto application--you can only be 80% successful, any more than that and you're evil (unless you're lucky enough to have another ladder to jump to).As Marlene put it, some quibbles:
Where are the facts? (The one fact I saw, that 20% of americans hold a college degree, is incorrect. The number is now over 30%.)
I don't agree that Gentry skew left and Elite skew right. Most statistical research shows that each class is basically split down the middle in this regard.
Why does he even use percentages if he admits he's only guessing?
And *why* exactly does he make the "uniform moral assumption" that all E1's are evil? Because some are? Or because they must be?
@Jenny
What would be "proof" for you? I'm not being sarcastic. What facts are you looking for?
He doesn't say all Elites are evil, just E1's because:
"as entities to be exploited (like everything else)"
Church isn't stating he hates E1's because they are rich or successful. He is stating he hates E1's because they exploit people for gain. The key word being "exploit."
And, I wouldn't say Jason's statement was that eloquent. He reads a ton into Church's article, which shows more on Jason than on what Church stated.
By no means does Church suggest:
"All my problems come from 60k people."
"The guy who stole my amazon package off my doorstep, the guy who tried to jimmy our door open one night, the convicted rapist who recently got arrested beating women in a nearby alley, yeah all those people were E1s."
"Wait, no, just the rich ones"
No, not just the rich ones. The ones who got rich off of exploiting others.
"I'm sure there are some L4s and L3s raping their step-daughters and beating their wives in their double-wides while the E1s are fucking camels and raping ski bunnies in Davo. But shit, they work, right? So let's skip over that part. I'm a little tired of the "noble peasant"."
Chuch is not suggesting that only E1's commit crime. He is suggesting that E1's are the only ones to commit crimes against everyone. He states, "they don't care what they own." Suggesting that people are fair game as property for E1's.
"I like how it's mostly a tirade against the E (E1) class."
While, he does focus on the E1 class, he does not heap any more scorn on the other E classes than he does on the G or L classes. Quit painting this like it's anti-rich. It's not.
"G1′s are likable and often deserving cultural leaders, but sometimes foolish, overrated, incompetent, infuriatingly petty, and too prone to groupthink to deserve their disproportionate clout. G2′s tend to have the best (or at least most robust) taste, because they don’t fall into G1 self-referentiality, but can be just as snooty and cliquish. As “pro-Gentry” as I may seem, it’s a massive simplification to treat that set as entirely virtuous. Likewise, the lower elite ranks (E2, E3, E4) also have their mix of good and bad people. There are E2′s who want to live well and decently, E3′s trying to provide for their families, and E4′s trying to get in because they were brought up to climb the ladder. On the other hand, E1 is pretty much objectively evil, without exceptions. There are decent people who are billionaires, so there’s no income or wealth level at which 100% objective evil becomes the norm."
What would be "proof" for you? I'm not being sarcastic. What facts are you looking for?
He doesn't say all Elites are evil, just E1's because:
"as entities to be exploited (like everything else)"
Church isn't stating he hates E1's because they are rich or successful. He is stating he hates E1's because they exploit people for gain. The key word being "exploit."
And, I wouldn't say Jason's statement was that eloquent. He reads a ton into Church's article, which shows more on Jason than on what Church stated.
By no means does Church suggest:
"All my problems come from 60k people."
"The guy who stole my amazon package off my doorstep, the guy who tried to jimmy our door open one night, the convicted rapist who recently got arrested beating women in a nearby alley, yeah all those people were E1s."
"Wait, no, just the rich ones"
No, not just the rich ones. The ones who got rich off of exploiting others.
"I'm sure there are some L4s and L3s raping their step-daughters and beating their wives in their double-wides while the E1s are fucking camels and raping ski bunnies in Davo. But shit, they work, right? So let's skip over that part. I'm a little tired of the "noble peasant"."
Chuch is not suggesting that only E1's commit crime. He is suggesting that E1's are the only ones to commit crimes against everyone. He states, "they don't care what they own." Suggesting that people are fair game as property for E1's.
"I like how it's mostly a tirade against the E (E1) class."
While, he does focus on the E1 class, he does not heap any more scorn on the other E classes than he does on the G or L classes. Quit painting this like it's anti-rich. It's not.
"G1′s are likable and often deserving cultural leaders, but sometimes foolish, overrated, incompetent, infuriatingly petty, and too prone to groupthink to deserve their disproportionate clout. G2′s tend to have the best (or at least most robust) taste, because they don’t fall into G1 self-referentiality, but can be just as snooty and cliquish. As “pro-Gentry” as I may seem, it’s a massive simplification to treat that set as entirely virtuous. Likewise, the lower elite ranks (E2, E3, E4) also have their mix of good and bad people. There are E2′s who want to live well and decently, E3′s trying to provide for their families, and E4′s trying to get in because they were brought up to climb the ladder. On the other hand, E1 is pretty much objectively evil, without exceptions. There are decent people who are billionaires, so there’s no income or wealth level at which 100% objective evil becomes the norm."
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
@Chad, even if I agreed with the author, if I was handed this paper as an editor I would view it as no more than a fluff opinion piece without any facts--which BTW it is. It's a blog post on a blog with the subheading "rants, essays, and diatribes" and not a published piece in a scholarly journal, which is how we're all treating it But anyway...
He states the intention of his piece in this paragraph:
"This is, one should note, an exposition of social class rather than income. Therefore, in many cases, precise income criteria cannot be defined, because there’s so much more involved. Class is more sociological in nature than wealth or income, and much harder to change. People can improve their incomes dramatically, but it’s rare for a person to move more than one or two rungs in a lifetime. Social class determines how a person is perceived, that person’s access to information, and what opportunities will be available to a person."
If he were basing his classes on economic data, that would be easy to find and define using census data and the like. He states that he's not however; he's basing his classes on sociological criteria. But sociological criteria can also be measured. If social class is how a person is perceived by other people, then statistical data should exist to show how people judge other's people's social class. And it does. Lots of it. A quick survey of recent, available data shows that people judge social class predominantly by economic factors, contradicting his main point. I agree that a person's social class determines more than their economic opportunities in life, but their income level--more than any other factor--determines their social class according to research. (a recent study is found here on how Americans view middle class http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/08/ ... dle-class/ but just google similar themes to see good data from respectable research firms)
So my biggest quibble (my new favorite word) would be that his article is based on *his own* viewpoints and personal definitions of social class, and he should present them as such. Research clearly shows that Americans don't define social class the same way. If he could find research that shows that even though Americans say they think one way about social class(like in the Pew article), but actually act a different way, THEN he'd be on to something really interesting.
edit: This sounded harsher than I intended. I guess everyone now knows what kind of editor I am
But anyway... He states the intention of his piece in this paragraph:
"This is, one should note, an exposition of social class rather than income. Therefore, in many cases, precise income criteria cannot be defined, because there’s so much more involved. Class is more sociological in nature than wealth or income, and much harder to change. People can improve their incomes dramatically, but it’s rare for a person to move more than one or two rungs in a lifetime. Social class determines how a person is perceived, that person’s access to information, and what opportunities will be available to a person."
If he were basing his classes on economic data, that would be easy to find and define using census data and the like. He states that he's not however; he's basing his classes on sociological criteria. But sociological criteria can also be measured. If social class is how a person is perceived by other people, then statistical data should exist to show how people judge other's people's social class. And it does. Lots of it. A quick survey of recent, available data shows that people judge social class predominantly by economic factors, contradicting his main point. I agree that a person's social class determines more than their economic opportunities in life, but their income level--more than any other factor--determines their social class according to research. (a recent study is found here on how Americans view middle class http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/08/ ... dle-class/ but just google similar themes to see good data from respectable research firms)
So my biggest quibble (my new favorite word) would be that his article is based on *his own* viewpoints and personal definitions of social class, and he should present them as such. Research clearly shows that Americans don't define social class the same way. If he could find research that shows that even though Americans say they think one way about social class(like in the Pew article), but actually act a different way, THEN he'd be on to something really interesting.
edit: This sounded harsher than I intended. I guess everyone now knows what kind of editor I am
I only made it 75% of the way through before I stopped reading. It is interesting reading, but it is written too subjectively from the Gentry viewpoint. This is apparent with the initial (and very awkward) explosion of hate in the E1 section. It carries on for the rest of the article, continually calling the Elites evil and the Gentrys good, correct, and virtuous. Got pretty annoying.
I read this and was trying to decide where ERE falls. I'm inclined to think an additional category between G and E would be most accurate. We could even concatenate those - G0E5 - for a nice descriptor.
Once I read past the category descriptions, which I really enjoyed, I stopped agreeing with the guy.
Once I read past the category descriptions, which I really enjoyed, I stopped agreeing with the guy.
-
aussierogue
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:02 pm
I am siding with Chad on this one. Reckoned it hit the spot....I am a G2 (actually revised a G1). What is interesting is that my brother is an E3...so many of the conflicts he talks about seem very real to me.
What is also interesting is that being FI and wanting to do some teaching (L3)I am dealing with the the suspicion that comes with that.
Completely agree that the L's dont see the E's and that G's tend to be more left (bobos in paradise is a great read) and E's represent the conservative establishment.
Maybe as a g2 the article preaches to the converted so thats why i like it. Confirmation bias!!!
The problem with Jasons summation is that he totally ridicules the idea that people flock to other people of the same ilk. Its about the study of societies. There is nothing new here. So if conservative people live in the same area and go to the same schools then we can make some generalisations. Christians for example tend to be consevrative. Interestingly i reckon the least likely to be christians according to the blog article are the G's...which seems about right.
chad highlighted this paragraph
"the Elite has something in common with Labor that sets the categories apart from the Gentry: a conception of work as a theater for masculine dominance".
Which makes just about anyone on this blog a G of some description (otherwise do your bloody duty man and getyourself a job!)
Slam dunk..
Aussie
What is also interesting is that being FI and wanting to do some teaching (L3)I am dealing with the the suspicion that comes with that.
Completely agree that the L's dont see the E's and that G's tend to be more left (bobos in paradise is a great read) and E's represent the conservative establishment.
Maybe as a g2 the article preaches to the converted so thats why i like it. Confirmation bias!!!
The problem with Jasons summation is that he totally ridicules the idea that people flock to other people of the same ilk. Its about the study of societies. There is nothing new here. So if conservative people live in the same area and go to the same schools then we can make some generalisations. Christians for example tend to be consevrative. Interestingly i reckon the least likely to be christians according to the blog article are the G's...which seems about right.
chad highlighted this paragraph
"the Elite has something in common with Labor that sets the categories apart from the Gentry: a conception of work as a theater for masculine dominance".
Which makes just about anyone on this blog a G of some description (otherwise do your bloody duty man and getyourself a job!)
Slam dunk..
Aussie
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
"I am siding with Chad on this one."
Aussie, how could you?!
(LOL...besides, Chad knows I love to argue with him)
The author should have left out the wealthy, like he did the "underclass" and just applied his ladders to the middle class. I think he would have been on to something then. The rules are different for the truly wealthy just as they are for the truly poor.
I've always felt that (in the US at least) the only mobility is within the middle class, and his system of ladders would have played into that nicely.
Aussie, how could you?!
(LOL...besides, Chad knows I love to argue with him)
The author should have left out the wealthy, like he did the "underclass" and just applied his ladders to the middle class. I think he would have been on to something then. The rules are different for the truly wealthy just as they are for the truly poor.
I've always felt that (in the US at least) the only mobility is within the middle class, and his system of ladders would have played into that nicely.