Social Engineering
 

Up until the second half of the 20th Century, there were several outward signs of success:

1) Having many children. A successful person could afford to have a large family. This was also good for society as successful people could outbreed deadbeats.

2) Being well-dressed. A successful person could afford the best clothes. Good-paying jobs required suits and ties. Lesser-paying jobs did not.

3) Being fat. If you were wealthy, you were well-fed.

With the advent of Welfare and other social engineering measures (like political correctness), this has been turned on its head. Now a successful person:

1) Has no children. One cannot afford to raise a large family unless the are on the dole. Successful people are more concerned with the latest iPhone than passing their genes on. As a result, we have a society where succesful people do not reproduce, and poor people breed like rabits.

2) Dresses casual. Only a used-car salesman has to wear a suit to work. A decent paying job is "business casual". A high-paying job is just casual.

3) Is thin. The wealthy can afford a low-carbohydrate diet, a membership to a gym, and dietician. The poor get twinkies, corn dogs, and corn pops.

Good observations.

While I agree with these observations, how are they social engineering?

And I blame it all on MTV.

Sort of, but I'd say that is more applicable to the big city lifestyle. Around here, big families are common, even for working professionals. Of course, $200k buys a nice big house.

Wife is an accountant (bachelors degree) turned housewife, I'm one semester short of being an aerospace engineer, and will be getting an MBA next. We have 2 kids, plan for 4-5. I dress up for work, long sleeved collared shirt with nice pants. Finally, I could stand to drop a few (30;)) lbs. I guess I'm just stuck in the 1950s, something I'm sure most liberals would agree with.

We shame people who are successful. As a result, the successful seek to appear less successful to relieve some guilt.

And I think the children thing is a direct result of Welfare, Medicaid, and all sorts of social programs for the poor. It's pretty much free to have kids if you are poor. The tax burden is so high on the middle class (and upper class), they don't want to have kids because it would mean a significant downgrade in lifestyle.

"Idiocracy"

I think that's a bit much. I'm proud of my success, moderate as it may be. I've worked hard for what I have, and feel no guilt as a result.

I would say that the kids thing, on the bottom, is a result of incentive programs that essentially encourage the poor to breed. More kids = more free money, that's all the parasites of society need to hear.

On the higher side of things, our society has changed a lot in the last 50 years. There are far more couples that both work, who don't want/can't afford to make the time and financial changes that kids require. We've become more selfish and materialistic as a whole, far more concern about me than we. There is far less of an emphasis on religion and family values, which tend to encourage having kids. Things are just far different than they were 50 years ago, and not entirely in a good way. My wife and kids are by far the greatest part of my life, drastically overshadowing all material possessions and personal achievements. Those that look down on the family life just don't know what they are missing.

I live in a neighborhood where 3 kids are the norm. We must be po.

1. Look in an 18th and 19th century graveyard. Many women died young, often in childbirth. You could have many kids - if you were rich - because you could afford another wife. And 90% of the population were farmers - another reason to have more.

Now most large familys are due to the dole. You have got immigrants on welfare with 10 kids, two wives here and waiting to sponser another dozen kids from overseas.. When did being open to "huddled masses" start to promote polygamy?

2. This still counts in Manhattan. Even if they don't wear a tie (and think they are getting away with something) - these big shots are in $3,000 suits. This business casual crap should go away as the 'boomers die off..

3. True enough.

Interesting. Blaming is a blast, isn't it? Problem is, Chris points out that successful people tend to not have many kids and then we skip to welfare being to blame for this? No information about changes in the size of poor families. I guess we're pretending they are larger? Returning to the original observation, that very successful people tend to have smaller families, the social movement that seems obviously to be driving this is........the success itself. In America we value money. Commercial success. Accumulation of property and money. We value this above all else. Heck, we consider it a double-coup if someone can become successful and break a few rules in the process. Those rules might be there to encourage fairness, or to prevent cheap shots. But cheap shots are often regarded as shrewd and clever and opportunistic.

I digress. Americans are spending more and more of their precious time in commercial pursuits. It is an all-encompassing endeavor, for many. To the detriment of institutions like family and community. This is a survival of the fittest society we have. And Chris' observations are just SOME of the consequences I find distasteful. No, I do not hate success. But I do love family and community. Perhaps we are not as balanced in our values as we might be ideally. Hmmmm.......

Having many children:
Gaijin made a good point. Another couple are:
Infant mortality. Those graveyards of even 80 yeaqrs ago have what we would consider a shocking number of children and infants dead from scarlet fever, diptheria and influenza.
If they lived, they helped out on the farm and became the family's social safety net.

Clothes represented a greater proportion of a family income in days gone by. Those clothes a person had had to be well made if they were to last. Yes, the wealthy could afford 'finery'.

The rich also had a greater incidence of lifestyle desease such as gout. Then as now, inactivity and diet could lead to medical problems.
Yes, processed foods are readily available and relatively cheap. On the other hand, if one does not mind a 'boring diet', you don't have to pay more for good food. Be prepared, however to prepare and cook a lot of it yourself. That in itself is a skill lost in many households.

Les

I don't know if this is expected or surprising coming from a liberal, but I value those simple, basic things more than modern, complex stuff. The woman I am dating does not have a power cable to her house. By the way, she said the Wall Street Journal is easily the best newspaper for starting fires. It is larger and has no color ink. Burns great.

I have been wanting to take my adult daughter to dinner and chat, but having trouble coordinating schedules and finding time. That's wrong. I think we would all be better off if we scaled back a bit on the economic struggle thing, and simplified our personal lives a bit.

Is this one of those tragic liberal agenda things?

"We shame the successful"


Talk about a generality with absolutely nothing to back it up.

Wow.

But, it s to be expected like so many other unprovable statements.

Yes, because when Exxon/Mobil posts a great quarter, they are celebrated. :rolleyes: SmileWavy

I think that's just a little bit different than your neighbor getting a promotion at work. Price gouging vs success.

That's the whole premise for "idiocracy". Watch it ! At least the first 5 minutes.... It's pretty scary (because it's probably true)

Perhaps "social evolution" would have been a more apt title.

+1 on the Idiocracy comment.

I beg to differ on the "rich not having children because they can't afford it" statement.

IMHO some of the rich chose not to have children because they are selfish and shallow... spending money on raising children would drain money away taking expensive vacation and buying outlandish cars, boats, mansions, and other expensive toys. Much the shame because raising children is most likely a more fulfilling and enriching experience.

"Americans spend money they don't have on things they don't need to impress people they don't like."

Hmmm.... I guess this attempt at placing blame on Welfare for rich peoples' greed didn't work out so well. Hard to believe there are problems not caused by gubmit. Just doesn't make sense.