Econlib Resources
|
TRACKBACKS (1 to date)
TrackBack URL: http://econlog.econlib.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/732
The author at Modeled Behavior in a related article titled Prior Trap Preview writes:
COMMENTS (7 to date)
Ironman writes:
Recently, I put together a series of posts that looked at how the distribution of income according to age group looked in 1995 and 2005. The most remarkable change is the reduction of the number of low income earners, or rather, the shift away from the lowest end of the income spectrum toward higher income levels. That change is consistent with the increasing level of education of younger individuals. Posted July 10, 2007 8:54 AM
Buzzcut writes:
I don't know if Judith Rich Harris' book would come to a different conclusion than Brink. Okay, it is peers, not parents, that make the child. But the affluent and educated cluster in neighborhoods together. And who are their children interacting with in ther overscheduled lives? The overscheduled children of other affluent, educated people. Once again, the predictions made in "The Bell Curve" are coming true. Meritocricy naturally leads to a different kind of aristocracy, one based on natural ability, probably genetically inherited. Posted July 10, 2007 9:54 AM
8 writes:
The womyns' movement increased the gap between rich and poor? Posted July 10, 2007 10:53 AM
Bruce G Charlton writes:
I think it is sloppy-thinking or dishonesty to equate low levels of social class mobility with old-style 'aristocracy' - as seems to happen among the media punditry. I have one genuine aristocratic friend (title, big country estate etc) and he needed a PhD to pursue his career, needs to work incredibly hard at several jobs to maintain income and status, wife has a very busy full time job, they shop at the same shops as everyone else, kids go to the same schools as other upper middle class people and so on. I fully expect their kids to do very well in life, due to a combination of good genes, good upbringing and schooling, and plenty of resources - but they will need to go to school, go to university, get good jobs and work hard in order to succeed - in ways that their ancestors certainly would not have needed to do. To imply that 'nothing has changed' from the days when aristocratic birth was both necessary and sufficient to maintain wealth and status is either uninformed or manipulative. Posted July 10, 2007 10:54 AM
ed writes:
I agree with Buzzcut. Posted July 10, 2007 11:46 AM
Robert Speirs writes:
"her community"?? why is Smith assuming that teachers are women? If he used the non-gender-specific "his", as has been used by writers of English for hundreds of years, he wouldn't commit this act of sexism. Posted July 10, 2007 3:02 PM
Karl Smith writes:
her community"?? why is Smith assuming that teachers are women? If he used the non-gender-specific "his", as has been used by writers of English for hundreds of years, he wouldn't commit this act of sexism. Actually, her refers to the student not the teacher. I tend to use her as the baseline in my writing and he only if there is more than one hypothetical person and I want to make it easier for the reader to keep them straight. Posted July 11, 2007 9:13 AM
Comments for this entry
have been closed
|
||||||||
|
|
Blogging software: Powered by Movable Type 4.2.1.
Pictures courtesy of the authors. All opinions expressed on EconLog reflect those of the author or individual commenters, and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of the Library of Economics and Liberty (Econlib) website or its owner, Liberty Fund, Inc.
The cuneiform inscription in the Liberty Fund logo is the
earliest-known written appearance of the word
"freedom" (amagi), or "liberty." It
is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.
|
||||||||