Question for socialists

[sasguru]

Possibly, but I'm not talking about mass produced Louis Vuitton crap here, I mean hand made one-offs by local artists and really very nice stuff. No brandnames but real craftsmanship; the sort of things the arrivistes would never recognise.

By making that statement you have identified yourself as an arriviste.

[Mich the Tester]

By making that statement you have identified yourself as an arriviste.

Of course; welcome!

[Spacecadet]

Let me recount a little story. A little while ago, the ravishing Lady Tester and I were wandering around a nearby small town that's known for its art galleries and little boutiques run by young designers. Obviously, some of the shoes on offer were of great interest to the lady of Tester manor, and of considerable economic disquietment to yours truly. Anyway, Lady Tester bought (and generously allowed me to pay for) a pair of shoes in a rather smart little shop. As we left the shop, we overheard a young boy asking his father 'what's in that shop?' His father, rather less elegantly dressed than most other perambulators, answered 'it's a shoe shop, but not a shoe shop for people like you and me'. He could have said to him 'it's a smart shoe shop, but you'll have to save up for some time to buy shoes in there', possibly 'it's a smart shoe shop, but you'll need to do lots of paper rounds to buy your shoes there' or 'it's a smart shoe shop and if you do your best at school and work very hard you might one day be able to buy your shoes in there'. But no, he told his kid it's 'not for you and me', rubbed his nose in his humble background and basically passed on the kind of fatalism that feeds poverty.

Isn't the problem inequality of ambition as opposed to purely economic inequality?

maybe it was a ladies shoe shop, hence not for father and son

[Mich the Tester]

maybe it was a ladies shoe shop, hence not for father and son

Ummm, no.

Anyway, congratulations to the congregation for meeting all of my expectations by grabbing precisely the wrong end of the stick!

I might move on to calling you all cretins at this rate! (but then that wouldn't be fair as most of you went to inferior state schools)

[d000hg]

90,000 students left school without basic literacy or numeracy in 2007 alone It might not be enough to make the UK a third world country but parts of the UK are most certainly "third world" such as "The North" .

How does this compare to 50 years ago, which so many people refer back to as being so much better?

I've had experience of both and although private schools are not perfect they seem to turn out much more well rounded, ambitious, competitive, successful individuals because those are the things that they encourage. State schools these days cannot even identify an individual by name when they are being disruptive, they cannot have winners and being ambitious is seen as something negative.

Private schools can have entry requirements. They can kick out children who are too problematic or don't achieve. The kids know they are expected to achieve and this builds a community of competition. Etc.

[sasguru]

maybe it was a ladies shoe shop, hence not for father and son

Indeed. Or maybe the father was a devotee of Manohlo Blahnik and Jimmy Choo rather than Amsterdam Hand_Made Posh Cloggies for Arrivistes.

[Old Greg]

Nice story but there is another explanation.
Perhaps the father was merely pointing out to his child that the sort of people who bought shoes in that shop were flighty, shallow, pretentious, silly people who paid ridiculous amounts for fashion designer ware.

Perhaps he was pointing out the lunacy of an economic system that produces luxuries for the few when so many go without the basics.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Lisa might not have put that the best way, but I know what she means. They engender the self confidence required to go out and be successful off your own bat. A bit like you sas.

Yep that's exactly what I meant - thanks DS

[doodab]

Isn't the problem inequality of ambition as opposed to purely economic inequality?

I think it's just one of many factors. I've no doubt that those of low educational attainment pass a lot of negative attitudes and bad habits onto their children (or perhaps they simply fail to pass on positive attitudes and good habits) plus of course there is the wider environment and social attitudes to contend with.

I think that there are a lot of interrelated factors that lead both to low educational attainment and low income. I'm certainly not of the opinion that low socioeconomic status is the sole cause of low educational attainment, if anything I think the causal relationship is stronger the other way, but I do think that the overall level of inequality in a society has something to do with it because it correlates strongly with people's general well-being i.e. health, mental health, crime levels and so on.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Perhaps he was pointing out the lunacy of an economic system that produces luxuries for the few when so many go without the basics.

Then perhaps Government should pass a law so that everyone must wear clogs - no envy then, nothing to aspire to, nothing to reward hard work - bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator and you have equality for all - problem solved