Here in the UK it is a post code lottery for healthcare and schools. So the wealthier the area the better the schools, as they attract more funding. The most academically talented teachers are creamed off for the top academies and grammars, and the areas that desperately need more classroom support via teaching assistants and funding are short changed. My colleague stopped a fight in her classroom yesterday when an 11 year old boy pulled a girl’s braids and when she said leave me alone, he punched her and pushed the teacher over. That is what we are dealing with now. Young people learn from their peers and environments. We need investment, equipped teachers and fair resource distribution in schools. Respecting girls is still a problem that needs addressing in government policy and the profession.Not just equality for women at work. By then behaviours are ingrained and so hard to tackle and change.
#themovingdance Teachers are the ONLY professionals who work with 100-150 clients EVERYDAY with no 24/7 assistance and very little pay to what they are expected to do. A doctor sees one patient at a time WITH a nurse assistant, two office workers and a desk receptionist. Doctor's salaries generally start at $75-100K. I contend that in the long run a well trained teacher is much more effective to the overall quality of a child's life. Starting salaries should begin at $65K; each teacher with a full-time assistant PLUS a student-teacher. Teachers should have free healthy breakfasts and lunches (for students as well). Tenure should begin after five years with a renewal every five years. That way bad teachers are weeded out. Also, teachers don't get to pick the school they want to teach at no more than a corporate job would. Teachers should live in or nearby where they teach. Once you improve the quality AND pay of teachers then children suddenly get educated.
I am not going to tell them what to do with their own money, but wages should be higher. Labor is receiving a record low share of national income versus capital, and that needs to be changed somehow. GDP goes higher and higher, but real wages do not. In part this is likely the result of declining competition in an economy increasingly dominated by a smaller and smaller number of larger and larger players. The farther an economy deviates from the textbook ideal of perfect competition, the less well the laws of the economic textbooks work. Big government needs to be a check on big business, and there needs to be a wall of separation between the corporation and the state.
The Civil Rights movement helped a handful of African-Americans mainly because those who had jobs were locked out of purchasing affordable real estate which later became million dollar properties; they were limited in attending ivy league schools; they were limited to how far they could rise in a company and often times not paid an equivalent salary to their white counterpart. Our country, unfortunately, continues to have an evilness that pervades throughout the nation.
Look at the stats. The average black American made *more* economic progress *before* the Civil Rights movement than after it. Nor were blacks locked out of affordable real estate, just out of white communities. You seem to think that living around black people is an unspeakable horror even if you yourself are black. Nor were Ivy League schools keeping out blacks. Many colleges in the 1950s had a strict color blind admissions policy and did not even want to know the race of the applicant when they made their admissions decisions. Every one of your points is is largely or entirely wrong on a factual level with the possible exception that conformist corporations probably preferred that their highest level executives be white, but this affected very, very few African Americans. Of course their are economic and educational differences between black and white and Jewish and Episcopalian and Asian and other Americans, and some of these differences were larger pre - Affirmative Action, but they are now and were then the result of innate cognitive differences, not systematic discrimination. Not that there was not discrimination, but it was not nearly as impactful as people imagine. And today the effect of Affirmative Action is to introduce vast inefficiencies in our economy which makes society as a whole far less well off than it otherwise would be, and while that may benefit some members of society who prosper beyond what their level of competence would indicate, it hurts just as many people on the flip side, while vastly misallocating human resources.
@@TheLivirus Sure... first of all, let's talk about his use of the word "Elites." The speaker is correct in Discerning that the anatomy of all human conflicts can be broken down into two categories (sorry sorry to be overly binary.) The two categories are the Oppressors and the Oppressed, or the Despisers and the Despised. (The despised invariably turn into Haters.) He makes the same mistake that Karl Marx made however when he assumes that the Despisers are the wealthy and the Despised are the poor. It is much more subtle than that, and is manifested in psychological, social, and even spiritual issues. An expression has developed in America in the past half-century or so, and it's called "sitting in the catbird seat." Whereas the etymology of this phrase is obscure, its meaning is not. Once you've heard it used in context, you know exactly what it means: it refers to a person being in a psychologically-- one could almost say psychic-ly-- dominant position over others. The "Elite" in any society can always be accurately labeled with this picturesque phrase. The true Elites are marked by their smugness. In America right now the elites are clearly represented by members of the entertainment industry, the political Left, Academia, and the mainstream media, and the last two categories are clearly not marked by overt prosperity... but they are Elite nonetheless. The speaker in this video is clearly a member of the Elite Class. He does not despise Elites, he despises rich people. He has every right to be a disciple of Karl Marx, but presenting us with warmed-over Marxism makes him subject to the same criticisms to which Uncle Karl was subject. The Bedrock Foundation of Marxism is not concern for the poor, it is a despising and envying of the rich. Karl Marx was born and raised in the middle of a Charles Dickens novel. He thought the conditions that he observed around him in England in the Industrial Age was the final denouement of the human race-- that factory owners, steel and railroad tycoons would grow ever richer through the oppression of their impoverished chattel laborers. He thought that wealth was like real estate-- there was only so much of it in the world, and if one person had it, that meant another person did not. We could go on for hours talking about the manifold blunders committed by Karl Marx. Many others have already done so far better than I ever could. Just Google it. I will conclude with an example from my own life. I am not a wealthy man, far from it. I live a fairly standard middle class American Life. (Which of course puts me far into the 1% of all human beings who have ever lived!) I am an artist. A moderately successful one. I have the power in my hands take a $50 canvas and in one afternoon's work turn it into a $3,000 canvas. In so doing I have not oppressed or abused anybody on the planet. Wealth is not based on real estate, it is not a zero-sum game. It is a win-win proposition.... in spite of what the speaker asserts.
At 4:15, I don't think Mr Giridharadas is being honest. Men don't have the right to grope people at the office. Neither does anyone else. I can't think of a federal or state law where this is made legal. I would have thought this is illegal in the US. Is this man gaslighting us?
I don't think he's referring to a legal right to grope people, more that it is tolerated/overlooked to a certain degree, in the context of #me2 and whatnot.
@@TheLivirus Fair Enough. I wish he would have said that instead. Using the word, 'right', improperly makes me question the motives of Mr. Giridharadas. Isn't he corroding the meaning of what a right (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights) is by using it in such a broad brushed way? I'd like people to understand what a right is. Mr. Giridharadas seems to muddle the term here. It sounds like you'd agree, bj0rn, that you want people to understand the difference between what is a right and is not. I'm glad we're on the same page there.
Translated from Dutch we aptly call your argument antf*cking (or mierenneuken), meaning you are nitpicking on a relatively insignificant point to express your discontent with the general subject and/or speaker. Anand is still correct in his point that civil rights issues aren't a win-win but a zero-sum game like segregation etc.
Lol trying to sneak in collectivism at the end. "these are the problems that we can only solve together" i.e. Politburo solves problem. Biggest problem is people who disagree with Politburo. Deal with them, then no more problem.
You completely missed the point. Not one word in there about "collectivism" or (what you are really saying, given your reference to Politburo) "socialism." He said: "Those are the kinds of problems that cannot be solved by really clever businesses, or really fun apps, or rich people who happen to be feeling generous on a particular day. Those are the kinds of problems we can only solve together, and those kinds of solutions have been discredited by the fantasy of the win-win that allows the winners to keep standing on people's backs." Solving problems together means true participation and engagement, i.e., not being sidelined, whether involuntarily or simply willfully, out of apathy and negligence of civic responsibility. His aside about "really fun apps" takes a direct poke at the high level of distraction in our digital culture, especially among the young, as well as their susceptibility to being purposefully distracted, to keep them from thinking about and participating in development of solutions, or to distract them from resisting how their futures are being expropriated by corporacratic elites. (Note: in the 2016 presidential election, only 16% of eligible voters aged 18-26 actually voted in the election, an appalling low number, reflecting apathy and disengagement when their futures are the most important as they begin hitting their full adult lives and start raising children.) The fantasy of the "win-win" includes the frontier-era freedom-fantasy in America that everyone can be winners, but that is simply not true in the reality on the ground, and there are powers at work to ensure the drastic economic disparity we see today... that indeed results in the winners (the One Percenters or the Five Percenters or whatever label they are tagged with) standing on the backs of the rest of us.
we live in a society....we are humans.....there has to be a level of "collectiveness" or it will just be a free for all ancap world....socialism is what saved capitalism from itself (hint hint new deal) )
@@snoopy_peanuts_77 It was not capitalism that made the great depression great, nor did the New Deal save us from the GD (as its top leaders admitted by the end of the 1930s). And if you are serious about society needing a level of collectiveness, then you must acknowledge that feminism works against that by operating on the implicit assumption that men and women are interchangeable individuals locked in a zero sum competition rather than partners in a family setting, which is the socially functional ideal that we should be moving toward rather than away from.
Hello Anand, you really know what you are talking about. The words you use are perfect for the topic. Thank you.
read his book Winners Take All
Here in the UK it is a post code lottery for healthcare and schools. So the wealthier the area the better the schools, as they attract more funding. The most academically talented teachers are creamed off for the top academies and grammars, and the areas that desperately need more classroom support via teaching assistants and funding are short changed. My colleague stopped a fight in her classroom yesterday when an 11 year old boy pulled a girl’s braids and when she said leave me alone, he punched her and pushed the teacher over. That is what we are dealing with now. Young people learn from their peers and environments. We need investment, equipped teachers and fair resource distribution in schools. Respecting girls is still a problem that needs addressing in government policy and the profession.Not just equality for women at work. By then behaviours are ingrained and so hard to tackle and change.
#themovingdance Teachers are the ONLY professionals who work with 100-150 clients EVERYDAY with no 24/7 assistance and very little pay to what they are expected to do.
A doctor sees one patient at a time WITH a nurse assistant, two office workers and a desk receptionist. Doctor's salaries generally start at $75-100K.
I contend that in the long run a well trained teacher is much more effective to the overall quality of a child's life.
Starting salaries should begin at $65K; each teacher with a full-time assistant PLUS a student-teacher. Teachers should have free healthy breakfasts and lunches (for students as well). Tenure should begin after five years with a renewal every five years. That way bad teachers are weeded out. Also, teachers don't get to pick the school they want to teach at no more than a corporate job would. Teachers should live in or nearby where they teach. Once you improve the quality AND pay of teachers then children suddenly get educated.
Amazing guy
They need to give away all of it
I am not going to tell them what to do with their own money, but wages should be higher. Labor is receiving a record low share of national income versus capital, and that needs to be changed somehow. GDP goes higher and higher, but real wages do not. In part this is likely the result of declining competition in an economy increasingly dominated by a smaller and smaller number of larger and larger players. The farther an economy deviates from the textbook ideal of perfect competition, the less well the laws of the economic textbooks work. Big government needs to be a check on big business, and there needs to be a wall of separation between the corporation and the state.
Expand the "I Call BS" movement into Corporate America, string up a few CEOs, watch them scramble to pay their employees more.
The Civil Rights movement helped a handful of African-Americans mainly because those who had jobs were locked out of purchasing affordable real estate which later became million dollar properties; they were limited in attending ivy league schools; they were limited to how far they could rise in a company and often times not paid an equivalent salary to their white counterpart.
Our country, unfortunately, continues to have an evilness that pervades throughout the nation.
Look at the stats. The average black American made *more* economic progress *before* the Civil Rights movement than after it. Nor were blacks locked out of affordable real estate, just out of white communities. You seem to think that living around black people is an unspeakable horror even if you yourself are black. Nor were Ivy League schools keeping out blacks. Many colleges in the 1950s had a strict color blind admissions policy and did not even want to know the race of the applicant when they made their admissions decisions. Every one of your points is is largely or entirely wrong on a factual level with the possible exception that conformist corporations probably preferred that their highest level executives be white, but this affected very, very few African Americans.
Of course their are economic and educational differences between black and white and Jewish and Episcopalian and Asian and other Americans, and some of these differences were larger pre - Affirmative Action, but they are now and were then the result of innate cognitive differences, not systematic discrimination. Not that there was not discrimination, but it was not nearly as impactful as people imagine.
And today the effect of Affirmative Action is to introduce vast inefficiencies in our economy which makes society as a whole far less well off than it otherwise would be, and while that may benefit some members of society who prosper beyond what their level of competence would indicate, it hurts just as many people on the flip side, while vastly misallocating human resources.
Is Anand Giridharadas straight edge??
Same with evil
I will never donate or be involved in philanthropy again. Didn’t realize it was hurting our democracy.
Oh my goodness, that was slick! There were so many word tricks involved with this conversation.
Elaborate please.
@@TheLivirus Sure... first of all, let's talk about his use of the word "Elites."
The speaker is correct in Discerning that the anatomy of all human conflicts can be broken down into two categories (sorry sorry to be overly binary.) The two categories are the Oppressors and the Oppressed, or the Despisers and the Despised. (The despised invariably turn into Haters.)
He makes the same mistake that Karl Marx made however when he assumes that the Despisers are the wealthy and the Despised are the poor. It is much more subtle than that, and is manifested in psychological, social, and even spiritual issues. An expression has developed in America in the past half-century or so, and it's called "sitting in the catbird seat." Whereas the etymology of this phrase is obscure, its meaning is not. Once you've heard it used in context, you know exactly what it means: it refers to a person being in a psychologically-- one could almost say psychic-ly-- dominant position over others.
The "Elite" in any society can always be accurately labeled with this picturesque phrase. The true Elites are marked by their smugness.
In America right now the elites are clearly represented by members of the entertainment industry, the political Left, Academia, and the mainstream media, and the last two categories are clearly not marked by overt prosperity... but they are Elite nonetheless.
The speaker in this video is clearly a member of the Elite Class. He does not despise Elites, he despises rich people. He has every right to be a disciple of Karl Marx, but presenting us with warmed-over Marxism makes him subject to the same criticisms to which Uncle Karl was subject.
The Bedrock Foundation of Marxism is not concern for the poor, it is a despising and envying of the rich.
Karl Marx was born and raised in the middle of a Charles Dickens novel. He thought the conditions that he observed around him in England in the Industrial Age was the final denouement of the human race-- that factory owners, steel and railroad tycoons would grow ever richer through the oppression of their impoverished chattel laborers. He thought that wealth was like real estate-- there was only so much of it in the world, and if one person had it, that meant another person did not.
We could go on for hours talking about the manifold blunders committed by Karl Marx. Many others have already done so far better than I ever could. Just Google it.
I will conclude with an example from my own life. I am not a wealthy man, far from it. I live a fairly standard middle class American Life. (Which of course puts me far into the 1% of all human beings who have ever lived!) I am an artist. A moderately successful one. I have the power in my hands take a $50 canvas and in one afternoon's work turn it into a $3,000 canvas. In so doing I have not oppressed or abused anybody on the planet. Wealth is not based on real estate, it is not a zero-sum game. It is a win-win proposition.... in spite of what the speaker asserts.
I’m embarrassed I subscribed to this channel.
Why?
At 4:15, I don't think Mr Giridharadas is being honest. Men don't have the right to grope people at the office. Neither does anyone else. I can't think of a federal or state law where this is made legal. I would have thought this is illegal in the US. Is this man gaslighting us?
Ian I don’t think he meant the literal right, rather the long-presumed ‘right’ to do as they please.
I don't think he's referring to a legal right to grope people, more that it is tolerated/overlooked to a certain degree, in the context of #me2 and whatnot.
@@TheLivirus Fair Enough. I wish he would have said that instead. Using the word, 'right', improperly makes me question the motives of Mr. Giridharadas.
Isn't he corroding the meaning of what a right (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights) is by using it in such a broad brushed way?
I'd like people to understand what a right is.
Mr. Giridharadas seems to muddle the term here.
It sounds like you'd agree, bj0rn, that you want people to understand the difference between what is a right and is not. I'm glad we're on the same page there.
@@Ian-oj8dm No he is not
Translated from Dutch we aptly call your argument antf*cking (or mierenneuken), meaning you are nitpicking on a relatively insignificant point to express your discontent with the general subject and/or speaker. Anand is still correct in his point that civil rights issues aren't a win-win but a zero-sum game like segregation etc.
Lol trying to sneak in collectivism at the end. "these are the problems that we can only solve together" i.e. Politburo solves problem. Biggest problem is people who disagree with Politburo. Deal with them, then no more problem.
You completely missed the point. Not one word in there about "collectivism" or (what you are really saying, given your reference to Politburo) "socialism."
He said: "Those are the kinds of problems that cannot be solved by really clever businesses, or really fun apps, or rich people who happen to be feeling generous on a particular day. Those are the kinds of problems we can only solve together, and those kinds of solutions have been discredited by the fantasy of the win-win that allows the winners to keep standing on people's backs."
Solving problems together means true participation and engagement, i.e., not being sidelined, whether involuntarily or simply willfully, out of apathy and negligence of civic responsibility.
His aside about "really fun apps" takes a direct poke at the high level of distraction in our digital culture, especially among the young, as well as their susceptibility to being purposefully distracted, to keep them from thinking about and participating in development of solutions, or to distract them from resisting how their futures are being expropriated by corporacratic elites. (Note: in the 2016 presidential election, only 16% of eligible voters aged 18-26 actually voted in the election, an appalling low number, reflecting apathy and disengagement when their futures are the most important as they begin hitting their full adult lives and start raising children.)
The fantasy of the "win-win" includes the frontier-era freedom-fantasy in America that everyone can be winners, but that is simply not true in the reality on the ground, and there are powers at work to ensure the drastic economic disparity we see today... that indeed results in the winners (the One Percenters or the Five Percenters or whatever label they are tagged with) standing on the backs of the rest of us.
we live in a society....we are humans.....there has to be a level of "collectiveness" or it will just be a free for all ancap world....socialism is what saved capitalism from itself (hint hint new deal)
)
@@snoopy_peanuts_77 It was not capitalism that made the great depression great, nor did the New Deal save us from the GD (as its top leaders admitted by the end of the 1930s). And if you are serious about society needing a level of collectiveness, then you must acknowledge that feminism works against that by operating on the implicit assumption that men and women are interchangeable individuals locked in a zero sum competition rather than partners in a family setting, which is the socially functional ideal that we should be moving toward rather than away from.
They need to give away all of it