We Need to Change Society

[smash]

This might be the last opportunity. Consciously or otherwise reinforcing the status quo is no longer an option. 

[winkie]

Old ways or the old style status quo no longer exists.......no going back.?

[Former postman]

31 minutes ago, smash said:

This might be the last opportunity. Consciously or otherwise reinforcing the status quo is no longer an option. 

Dont worry. Us under 40's see it. Its just a matter of time

[Innkeeper]

I’m afraid you’ll all have to be a bit more specific!!!

Down with this sort of thing!

[smash]

5 minutes ago, Innkeeper said:

I’m afraid you’ll all have to be a bit more specific!!!

Down with this sort of thing!

Down with sort of thing translates to status quo.

[erat_forte]

Who is "we"?

Society is constantly changing anyway.

[A.steve]

31 minutes ago, erat_forte said:

Society is constantly changing anyway.

About 5 years ago, I attended an art-gallery presentation with the title "Change".  I had time to kill and the title made me curious.  I paid £5 to get in - and the gallery took my name (which they mis-spelled).  Inside, I didn't find any fine art... but I did find a presentation purporting to be the history of Socialism.  There was a vast amount of dull text... two details in the material that stood out to me were:  (a) the claim that Tony Blair was a "true socialist"; (b) a story [which I half-remember having heard before] about (C19?) artisan workers in the Cotswolds competing with bigger business and establishing themselves as a community who would support each other.  The thing that stood out to me most, however, was that visitors were banned from photographing the exhibits - and a young woman (with purple hair) sat guarding the door, reading a book - or watching me, for the full two hours I was there... there were no other visitors.

The thing about "change" is that it has scant concrete meaning.  Change is a direct consequence of the passing of time - it causes anxiety... especially when discussed in the abstract... and likely assumes a different meaning whenever it is said/written and whenever it is interpreted.

[Speed1987]

Society doesn't need to change, you need to change with society.

Theres no real issues in England, compared to other countries around the world.

We have the NHS, free social housing and a benefits system.

I understand that the housing market is distorted compared to wages, the answer is simple... dont live in someone else's pocket.

Put your boots on and build you own business, if you get big enough, you'll get state support when things go wrong.

London, is now out of reach for many, what you've witness prior is cheap housing because of WW1 & WW2.

Unfortunately England and our quality of life is also out of reach for many others.

Houses in Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool are still affordable to purchase, to a couple on minimum wage...

[Riedquat]

Sure, some things need to change, but you'll need to be a bit more specific on what. I'm very much against change in general because it's changed (hah!) to be a synonym for "cure's worse than the disease." Far too much of it does nothing about genuine issues, adds things whose benefits are banal and trivial at best, and causes a hell of a lot of damage in the process, messing up the parts that were perfectly fine.

A good place to start for changing society would be to encourage rather more self-responsibility. I see from this morning's news that the exact opposite is still preferred though.

[byron78]

My parents generation DID change society.

They went to war, stood shoulder to shoulder with the proles, and realised they were actual flesh and blood people just like them too.

You got universal healthcare, free housing, universal schooling, free university, and nationalised industries to protect jobs and national security.

You could live on one adult wage, in a decent house, in a decent part of the country, as well.

The price? Those of us who already had wealth paid 95% tax at various points. 

My generation decided "no more of that!" and put a stop to most of it. The proles clapped along quite happily.

I really can't see you getting any of that back I'm afraid. It's true rich people don't mean poor people (in that me having a lot doesn't automatically impoverish you) BUT a lot of our money has poured into areas of the economy you all use. We own houses now (not a house). We have shares in your utility companies. We will soon be able to "invest" in your hospitals more too...

[ForGreatLager...]

9 hours ago, Postman said:

Dont worry. Us under 40's see it. Its just a matter of time

I hope so. Not to pour cold water on that, I truly hope things change for the better, but I felt the same in my twenties. I thought that my generation (GenX) wouldn’t be like our parents (Boomers) and be such a greedy, selfish, keeping-up-with-the-Joneses bunch of people. Unfortunately, it seems that a large amount have fallen into the same ways. Conspicuous consumption has been around (in Britain) since the Iron Age. I can’t see anything stopping it now. 

[msi]

1 hour ago, ForGreatLager... said:

 Conspicuous consumption has been around (in Britain) since the Iron Age.

Only for the highest classes of Britain.  Most of Britain was make do and mend.  The emerging middle classes of Georgian England were careful with money, always trying to invest and move up in social circles. Only when you reached the Gentry did money get spent - usually to pass into Nobility. 

[Big Orange]

8 hours ago, msi said:

.  The emerging middle classes of Georgian England were careful with money, always trying to invest and move up in social circles.

But when social mobility becomes virtually impossible and average level of working/living gets worse, that's a form of ossification and fragility in a established system.

[MarkG]

51 minutes ago, Big Orange said:

But when social mobility becomes virtually impossible and average level of working/living gets worse, that's a form of ossification and fragility in a established system.

Social mobility is traditionally downwards, with the lessor sons of the gentry ending up in the middle class and the lessor sons of the middle class ending up running shops and the like. It was the Industrial Revolution which created a lot of upward mobility as machines allowed those lower down the social scale to make enough money to rise up it.

But we shipped that industry to China, so it's no surprise that we're returning to traditional downward mobility.

[GregBowman]

3 hours ago, MarkG said:

Social mobility is traditionally downwards, with the lessor sons of the gentry ending up in the middle class and the lessor sons of the middle class ending up running shops and the like. It was the Industrial Revolution which created a lot of upward mobility as machines allowed those lower down the social scale to make enough money to rise up it.

But we shipped that industry to China, so it's no surprise that we're returning to traditional downward mobility.

Never seen it described that way before but makes sense 

From personal experience to continue the analogy - high paid, high skilled service engineering roles continued that pattern from the 70’s to early 2000’s

Those jobs through changing technology just aren’t around anymore 

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

4 minutes ago, GregBowman said:

Never seen it described that way before but makes sense 

From personal experience to continue the analogy - high paid, high skilled service engineering roles continued that pattern from the 70’s to early 2000’s

Those jobs through changing technology just aren’t around anymore 

They are, but you essentially need to be top notch, and that means in the top x% globally, not just in 60 million people.

[msi]

7 hours ago, Big Orange said:

But when social mobility becomes virtually impossible and average level of working/living gets worse, that's a form of ossification and fragility in a established system.

Agreed.  You can go further and say any freeze in social mobility is a trigger that a society is ready to collapse.  On the converse you can say any society that has an emerging middle class is naturally a rising power - China being an example. 

 

6 hours ago, MarkG said:

Social mobility is traditionally downwards, with the lessor sons of the gentry ending up in the middle class and the lessor sons of the middle class ending up running shops and the like. It was the Industrial Revolution which created a lot of upward mobility as machines allowed those lower down the social scale to make enough money to rise up it.

But we shipped that industry to China, so it's no surprise that we're returning to traditional downward mobility.

When you have ossified means of wealth creation , then you are fighting a downhill battle to retain wealth and find new ways to be successful.  The top class reinforce this by Lavishness (knowing it will make weaker competition poorer as they try to keep up) and  Rentierism.  The cultural norm changes from meritocratic to feudalistic (new money is frowned upon, and the idea of a class 'stock' arises).

 In Western traditions primogeniture meant wealth went to the first born.  Lessor children were dontated to the state (via Military or Church).

[Riedquat]

21 minutes ago, msi said:

Agreed.  You can go further and say any freeze in social mobility is a trigger that a society is ready to collapse.  On the converse you can say any society that has an emerging middle class is naturally a rising power - China being an example.

You can say they're going through their own equivalent of the Industrial Revolution but I don't think you can draw that out as a continuing generality - what happens when every country's done that? It smacks of trying to solve past problems.

[nightowl]

17 hours ago, ForGreatLager... said:

I hope so. Not to pour cold water on that, I truly hope things change for the better, but I felt the same in my twenties. I thought that my generation (GenX) wouldn’t be like our parents (Boomers) and be such a greedy, selfish, keeping-up-with-the-Joneses bunch of people. Unfortunately, it seems that a large amount have fallen into the same ways. Conspicuous consumption has been around (in Britain) since the Iron Age. I can’t see anything stopping it now. 

Keeping up with (and outdoing) the Jones* I suspect as old as time itself and different generations now do it differently.

Boomers: the holidays been on

Gen X: our PCP car

Gen Y: number of Instagram likes

* Must be a nightmare in Wales

[msi]

36 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

You can say they're going through their own equivalent of the Industrial Revolution but I don't think you can draw that out as a continuing generality -

Both Stalin's Russia and Mao's China went through an Industrial 'Great Leap'. Russia immediately ossified as there was no incentive and reward to innovate.  It's middle class never arose - the technology progress was limited to iterations existing designs, Mig for Planes, Mil for Helicopters, Korolev for Rockets.  It couldn't innovate and was reliant on copying the West with the hilarious results of Concordski and Buran.

China allowed innovation and reward under Deng Xiao Peng - the Devil's bargain was to get monetary benefit by sacrificing all political benefit. Once you have a critial mass of new Chinese capital, the West will bend over and sacrifice their own principles to service that.

Quote

what happens when every country's done that? It smacks of trying to solve past problems.

I didn't say that every country needs an 'Industrial Revolution'. Every growing culture needs the ability to innovate, experiment, and be rewarded for success.  Niall Ferguson attempts to sum this up nicely, but falls into a Western centric view.

[Riedquat]

55 minutes ago, nightowl said:

Keeping up with (and outdoing) the Jones* I suspect as old as time itself and different generations now do it differently.

 

19 minutes ago, msi said:

I didn't say that every country needs an 'Industrial Revolution'. Every growing culture needs the ability to innovate, experiment, and be rewarded for success.  Niall Ferguson attempts to sum this up nicely, but falls into a Western centric view.

Sounds more like Keeping Up With the Jones' from here... That's what I mean about solving old problems. Often people attempt to defend what they label as "progress" by pointing out pre-industrial conditions, but that's history (in this part of the world anyway). The justifications have mostly faded away but we still push forward with innovations that only exist to put one over someone else, or to stop them doing that to us. It's become more of an arms race than anything else. True, it throws out the odd real benefit (i.e. doesn't just appeal to chronic impatience or novelty) but I firmly believe causes far more damage than it solves. We can't make a system that works well because of that fear of "ossification".

[ForGreatLager...]

1 hour ago, nightowl said:

Keeping up with (and outdoing) the Jones* I suspect as old as time itself and different generations now do it differently.

If only people had a bit more self-confidence......what a different western world we’d live in. 

[anonguest]

On 27/07/2020 at 09:01, erat_forte said:

Who is "we"?

Society is constantly changing anyway.

You beat me to it.

I agree.  There is no such thing as 'status quo'.

Society is constantly changing, albeit very slowly like the minute hand on a clock,  and the best and most enduring socio/economic changes are invariably those which come about gradually - rather than being implemented abruptly.

[Big Orange]

6 hours ago, msi said:

Both Stalin's Russia and Mao's China went through an Industrial 'Great Leap'. Russia immediately ossified as there was no incentive and reward to innovate.  It's middle class never arose - the technology progress was limited to iterations existing designs, Mig for Planes, Mil for Helicopters, Korolev for Rockets.  It couldn't innovate and was reliant on copying the West with the hilarious results of Concordski and Buran.

Thing is that's a continuation of Imperial Russia ossifying by the mid 19th century, then the early to mid 20th century being a perpetual blood bath (a ton of smart, open people died), with present day Russia being far too intractably corrupt, aged, and dysfunctional on a fundamental level to sustain itself.

I wouldn't be suprised Russia will be a irrelevance and becomes a tired rump state that has retreated back over the Urals in the near-future following Putin's death.

[shlomo]