Barbaric

[Loren Pechtel]

Which does nothing to address the issue. Where are the studies that check if race is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status?

Why do you think there is a difference in socioeconomic status, on average?

Because socioeconomic status is to a large degree passed culturally from parent to child. And to some degree genetically passed.

Look at Poland after WWII. The whole educational system had been destroyed in the war, Russia basically had a greenfield situation to build the fairest system they could. Still a big correlation between the skill of the parent's jobs and the skill of the children's jobs.

One's handling of money is a large part of socioeconomic status. And that's learned from parents and community, it's not from schools.

No matter how much you jam the discriminate-against-the-successful button it doesn't do much of anything for the very ones you're trying to help. It just makes it easy for those who resemble the ones you're trying to help.

And yet Abraham Lincoln became president, Oprah Winfrey is a billionaire, my dad wore a suit and tie to work for decades, abd so on. The world is replete with examples of people who achieved far more than their humble beginnings and limited opportunities offered them.

We don’t hear as much about the offspring of well educated, well to do families who manage to not get a decent education nor career nor even support themselves in any meaningful way.

So? Some have just the right combination to succeed anyway. Doesn't change the fact that there is a large degree of attitude transfer from parent to child.

 

[Toni]

Which does nothing to address the issue. Where are the studies that check if race is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status?

Why do you think there is a difference in socioeconomic status, on average?

Because socioeconomic status is to a large degree passed culturally from parent to child. And to some degree genetically passed.

Look at Poland after WWII. The whole educational system had been destroyed in the war, Russia basically had a greenfield situation to build the fairest system they could. Still a big correlation between the skill of the parent's jobs and the skill of the children's jobs.

One's handling of money is a large part of socioeconomic status. And that's learned from parents and community, it's not from schools.

No matter how much you jam the discriminate-against-the-successful button it doesn't do much of anything for the very ones you're trying to help. It just makes it easy for those who resemble the ones you're trying to help.

And yet Abraham Lincoln became president, Oprah Winfrey is a billionaire, my dad wore a suit and tie to work for decades, abd so on. The world is replete with examples of people who achieved far more than their humble beginnings and limited opportunities offered them.

We don’t hear as much about the offspring of well educated, well to do families who manage to not get a decent education nor career nor even support themselves in any meaningful way.

So? Some have just the right combination to succeed anyway. Doesn't change the fact that there is a large degree of attitude transfer from parent to child.

There’s a large degree of wealth transfer as well.

I think you mentioned that your parents both had PhD’s? Forgive me if I misremembered that. But if I’m right, and they do/did: do you?

If not, what happened there?

Do you know why my father finished high school?

To spite his father, who tried to force him to drop out of school at 16. I think that screwed my grandfather over, Dad finishing high school and going off to get a job off the farm.

 

[aupmanyav]

Developed societies do not have 6.8% growth rates. Growth rates like that exist only in the developing world where you can import better and better tech. Once you approach developed world standards your growth rate will slow. The only question is whether your government manages it gently, or does like China has and damn the torpedoes--kept building when there wasn't the demand, and now they have a bunch of stuff sitting idle and a huge financial mess because that building was done with loans.

I am not an economist to comment on that. I am saying what reports say. I do not think Indian business people will make something which is not saleable. But it seems Indian ministries of Finance and Commerce are doing fine with Nirmala Seetharaman and Piyush Goel at the helm and Narendra Modi to monitor their work. We have trade deals with many countries and the one with US is likely to be finalized soon. Our economy did not suffer much from the effects of Israel/US/Iran war. Yes, I can see that this growth will not continue for ever.

 

[aupmanyav]

There is no such thing as a system that can't produce an error. Nor should there be because the only way to truly guarantee no errors is to do nothing. All you can actually do is make the error rate acceptably low--there comes a point where trying to increase accuracy diverts effort away from areas where it could have been of more benefit. And note that it's not a one size fits all, either--the more other sources of problems there are the lower the priority of dealing with any given case.

Even within a society the situation can change. Do any procedure that involves anesthesia and they're extremely strict about you having an empty stomach--stomach contents getting into the lungs is a very bad thing and no perfect protection exists short of having no stomach contents. But does that mean a trauma patient doesn't get treatment because their stomach isn't empty? Of course not--stopping bleeding takes priority, they do what they can to protect the lungs but the risks go way up.

I say this because the Indian judicial system is squarely on the side of accused, and they will quash the accusation if they have any doubt. This has happened even with many terrorists who were released because police could not prove their cases with evidence. The most famous of them is the case of the Godhra cleric in Gujarat, who got away while 31 of his followers were punished.

Hussain Umarji - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[bilby]

If somebody is doing life without parole and escapes they have absolutely no reason not to do whatever they want if there is no death penalty.

Nonsense. Such an individual has a huge incentive to avoid doing anything to attract attention, knowing that they are being hunted by the authorities.

Committing crimes, particularly serious crimes, carries a huge risk of attracting attention to their whereabouts.

The death penalty doesn't enter into it; If capture and a return to prison were not a strong motivating factor for them, they would not have wanted to escape. Indeed, it doesn't seem unlikely that some people who were so unhappy in prison as to stage an escape would welcome the death penalty as an alternative to a return to their former punishment. In such cases, the death penalty could actually incentivise them to commit more serious crimes.