The “noble” sentiment: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14460960&postcount=17
It’s not the overclass that is the problem, it’s the moron class. And that cuts across income boundaries.
A model in which 100% of the rich remain rich and 100% of the poor remain poor has also reached equilibrium. Is there stratification in that society? Or are you going to hang your hat on the word “increased”?
Nice use of symbols, by the way, though I’m almost afraid to ask what you think “<>” means.
Now there’s your 99%!
No, actually, the moron class is rarely a problem, because morons usually end up doing what (sometimes marginally) smarter persons they trust tell them to do. Usually those are persons of their own social class. This includes voting behavior, there have been studies.
You very well know what <> means.
And you’re moving goalposts. You did not claim stratification - that would just be claiming that water is wet. There is no society on Earth, and never has been, without stratification. You claimed “increased stratification” as a necessary result of higher probability of success for the rich. Which is demonstrably not true.
Do you mean != ?
Quite true, but that covers a lot of ground, some societies are more stratified than others. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to put on the table, as a stated long-term goal, not a classless society, but just an America with a slightly flatter social pyramid, the top and bottom closer together than now. Simply because that’s a better society into which to be born.
Some computer languages use !=. Some use <>. And no, I don’t think you are “”. Or if you are, it’s a deliberate confusion.
If money is political speech pure and simple, then we have made the poor mute. Just because the law applies equal to all does not lead to just results, the sort of results the first amendment envisions.
To be fair, money ultimately cannot defeata n engaged citizenry. We just haven’t had much of one in my lifetime but theoretically it could happen.
So, a society in which 100% of the rich remain rich and 100% of the poor remain poor doesn’t have “increased” stratification and therefore…
In the United States in the past 30 years, has stratification increased or decreased? How about income inequality? How about wealth share?
That’s meaningless, “cuz computer programs [aren’t] the arbiters of math.”
One thing I’ve noticed from my casual reading of history is that when it’s the engaged citizenry versus the money, things get ugly. Much better to act before that point is reached.
Neither != nor <> is a mathematical symbol. The accepted mathematical “not equals” symbol is not reproducible using ASCII. How is this relevant to the subject at hand?
You can develop this further if you want. But that’s not what the post to which I originally responded was discussing. And I disproved the point you were making in that post.
Can’t we just swap in =/= for ≠ at need?
I’m just trying to learn math now, since society failed me earlier. Remind me again, is 100 ≤ 100?
Could you point out specifically where in that thread the question “is 100 ≤ 100” is answered?
What is this, 1952? Cabots and Lodges vacationing on the Cape after a hard year of investment banking and lawyering?
Give me a break. The “overclass” is less white than it’s ever been. It’s awfully Jewish, you know. Why don’t you run with that?