People who rose from very humble beginnings.

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,695
SoCal
#32
I think that we should move this debate to PMs. I will say a couple of things, though:

The USSR failed because there was no incentive for people to try hard. I'm not saying that there should be no reward for trying hard and accomplishing a lot. After all, having tens or hundreds of millions would certainly be a sufficient reward for innovation, hard work, et cetera. My issue is with the extremely massive amount of wealth that some people have. They could lose 90-95% of their wealth (in the case of billionaires) and still have enough money to live like Kings or Queens. Meanwhile, the rest of their wealth could be given to help those people who are less fortunate. An extra several thousand dollars could go a very long way for a poor person whereas having someone's wealth drop 95%--specifically from a billion to fifty million--probably isn't going to affect their quality of life very much.

Countries such as the Scandinavian countries or Germany appear to handle "socialism" much better than the USSR did because in those countries, there actually does appear to be an incentive for people to work hard, innovate, et cetera. However, these countries nevertheless try to make life better for their poor and needy and appear to put more effort in regards to this than Americans do.

Also, you might disagree with any wealth redistribution, and that's your right to do so. However, I am simply pointing out that one could legitimately take the opposite position in regards to this and say that people shouldn't be rewarded too much for factors that are out of their control (such as their IQ). In other words, reward people, but don't create extremely astronomical income and wealth inequalities like those that exist in real life. Also, as a side note, I don't think that people deserve to inherit crazy amounts of money from their parents. Obviously letting one's children inherit millions is fine, but when we're talking about hundreds of millions or more, I really do think that this is over the line and that some wealth redistribution is warranted.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,783
#34
Also, I forgot to mention Joan of Arc here. She certainly deserves a mention here since she was the heroine who helped turn the tide in France's war against the English in the early 1400s.



I actually think that it might be easier for a talented, smart non-White person (especially Black and/or Hispanic person) to rise up the ranks in the US nowadays due to the existence of affirmative action. Since Black and Hispanic talent is more scarce (for instance, I think that there have been no Black Fields Medal winners), it appears to be more valued in our society. A Black mathematician would likely get much more job offers than a White mathematician with a similar resume and achievements would simply because Black mathematicians are much rarer than White mathematicians are. The New York Times recently wrote about the scarcity of Black mathematicians.
Just False. Wrong. It's not what you know, it's who you know. Success is generally one of opportunities and networks. Most professional jobs in Austrlia now are sourced outside of professional job processing. Is hearing about oppontnbuities people, recommending you. People remain People. Putting a black sounding or female name on a resume results in less chance of getting an interview.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,695
SoCal
#35
Just False. Wrong. It's not what you know, it's who you know. Success is generally one of opportunities and networks. Most professional jobs in Austrlia now are sourced outside of professional job processing. Is hearing about oppontnbuities people, recommending you. People remain People. Putting a black sounding or female name on a resume results in less chance of getting an interview.
It depends where. If a job isn't interested in diversity very much, then you might be correct. If, on the other hand, a job is greatly interested in diversity, then they could aggressively recruit underrepresented minorities--even if a lot of these people might be less qualified for this job than some other candidates are.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,783
#36
It depends where. If a job isn't interested in diversity very much, then you might be correct. If, on the other hand, a job is greatly interested in diversity, then they could aggressively recruit underrepresented minorities--even if a lot of these people might be less qualified for this job than some other candidates are.
Well studies have shown the reverse is true that people somewhat unconsciously discriminate against women and blacks for example. That identical resumes with female or black sounding names do much worse at getting interviews. And this can be independent of the gender of the people reading he resume. And some studies show that organizations with "pro diversity" Rhetoric do not perform any better. Do a search there's been a fair few studeis in these area,.

Study shows gender bias in science is real. Here's why it matters.
Minorities Who 'Whiten' Job Resumes Get More Interviews

Almost everyone I know who works in computing (I'm a computer geek) gets jobs through networking for the overwhelming majority of their jobs.

So regardless of informal or formal processes minorities are at a disadvantage.
.