Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
No, of course, I'm all for fairness.
But your original post seemed to claim that she was discriminated against for being black and Southern, whereas in actual fact, if people can't understand her, then she has fewer 'skills' (in a purely job market-based sense) than someone with a more neutral-sounding accent.
She may well be unintelligible as a result of being from a poor Southern background, but that's a different thing. That's the inherent unfairness you're complaining about (which I agree is, well, unfair).
But your original post seemed to claim that she was discriminated against for being black and Southern, whereas in actual fact, if people can't understand her, then she has fewer 'skills' (in a purely job market-based sense) than someone with a more neutral-sounding accent.
She may well be unintelligible as a result of being from a poor Southern background, but that's a different thing. That's the inherent unfairness you're complaining about (which I agree is, well, unfair).
N
nomadologist
Guest
She was just one example--at least she had enough advantages to get into college (she was also in my grad program).
I was really thinking more of the kinds of kids who grow up in my neighborhood--often black/hispanic but speak Spanish as their first language and go to PS 130-whatever and will probably be limited to service jobs based on their speech.
I was really thinking more of the kinds of kids who grow up in my neighborhood--often black/hispanic but speak Spanish as their first language and go to PS 130-whatever and will probably be limited to service jobs based on their speech.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Hmmm...well you can compare that to white kids in London who go out of their way to talk like Jamaican gangsters. It might sound 'cool' in the playground when you're 14 but it's probably not too impressive to a potential employer.
The guys who post in the Grime threads a lot could probably write PhD theses about this.
The guys who post in the Grime threads a lot could probably write PhD theses about this.
N
nomadologist
Guest
i would guesstimate that tuition + room and board (which at an elite college is easily $40,000/year plus nowadays) excludes at least 90% of the population from being able to pay themselves for college. probably another 40% of people don't even qualify for the kind of private loans many people need to survive four years of college.
it differs by region, but this is what seems about right in NYC
N
nomadologist
Guest
Hmmm...well you can compare that to white kids in London who go out of their way to talk like Jamaican gangsters. It might sound 'cool' in the playground when you're 14 but it's probably not too impressive to a potential employer.
The guys who post in the Grime threads a lot could probably write PhD theses about this.
I suppose--only here, the kids are actually raised by gansters and their speech is not affected. It's just part of who they are.
N
nomadologist
Guest
there were a few good anecdotes about the ivy leage prestige fetish, when i finally waded through
N
nomadologist
Guest
my family refused to speak italian because back then you had to assimilate or you'd be shinning shoes forever
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
It would pretty funny if you had to put on another accent for your job.
Like if plumbers had to talk geordie or no-one would understand what they were on about.
Or if detective-inspectors had to speak in dodgy french accents.
Like if plumbers had to talk geordie or no-one would understand what they were on about.
Or if detective-inspectors had to speak in dodgy french accents.
Last edited:
N
nomadologist
Guest
New Yoik is Queens/Italian. My relatives all talk more Brooklyn than Queens. LIke:
"AAay gim me dat sawuss wuldya?"
"AAay gim me dat sawuss wuldya?"
N
nomadologist
Guest
Just searched my school name for stories about privilege. found there was a whole fashion show inspired by us last year:
http://www.style.com/fashionshows/collections/F2006RTW/review/TULEH
http://www.lasplash.com/publish/cat_index_Style_and_Fashion/Tuleh_Fall_2006_Collection_printer.php
http://www.style.com/fashionshows/collections/F2006RTW/review/TULEH
http://www.lasplash.com/publish/cat_index_Style_and_Fashion/Tuleh_Fall_2006_Collection_printer.php
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Have you seen the 'Julio Geordio' sketch on the Fast Show? It's Paul Whitehouse as a South American footballer who's signed to Newcastle and speaks Spanish interspersed with bits of Geordie. Later he transfers to West Ham or something and turns into an Agentinian Cockney.
vimothy
yurp
Sweet Jesus
Just to take issue with this. Marx based his economics on the LTV, which he took from Ricardo and Smith. I am reasonably familiar with it (as familiar as I can be bothered to be). It is an anachronism, and of little relevance to today (except as the source of theories of "exploitation"). Although it reads as though written by committee (unsuprisingly), the wikipedia entry on the Labour Theory of Value is worth a look. It (LTV) is actually the beginning of the end for Marxian economics, so is intersting to classical liberals for that reason alone, I guess. Of course commodities don't "embody" labour - Marx drifts into a terminal economic dead-end, with a mountain of criticisms towering over him (like, y'know - robots), including, most hilariously and incontrovertibly, his own.
As for the theory of subjective value, well, that's what I've been saying all along, isn't it? There's no intrinsic value, just what the market wants to pay. That's what everyone was disagreeing with. Amusingly, you even manage to repeat my argument back to me. Yes, the value of a good describes its relative scarcity and the and the difficulty of its being reproduced - that's what I've been saying all thread.
Last edited:
IdleRich
IdleRich
Yes, Vimothy is right (on this point), these two things are surely the same. I think Nomadologist didn't read that last point properly or failed to understand it or something because she claimed to disagree with it and then repeated it.
Doesn't change the overall situation though...
borderpolice
Well-known member
first you say:
the two are incompatible.
If there's no intrinsic value, only what 'the' market wants to pay, then there is no point in using markets for pricing decisions, we may just as well flip coins in deciding what to pay. If however, the market describes "relative scarcity and the and the difficulty of its being reproduced", then you have an external criterion, a non-market based notion of value. In this case, one may want to ask it it is in fact true that the market value corresponds to this external -- scarcity based -- criterion. And this you have not done. so which of the two options do you hold to be true?
My own take on it is that markets in fact do pay what markets pay and that's all. there is in general no convergence at all between market value and external scarcity criteria. However
but then:
the two are incompatible.
If there's no intrinsic value, only what 'the' market wants to pay, then there is no point in using markets for pricing decisions, we may just as well flip coins in deciding what to pay. If however, the market describes "relative scarcity and the and the difficulty of its being reproduced", then you have an external criterion, a non-market based notion of value. In this case, one may want to ask it it is in fact true that the market value corresponds to this external -- scarcity based -- criterion. And this you have not done. so which of the two options do you hold to be true?
My own take on it is that markets in fact do pay what markets pay and that's all. there is in general no convergence at all between market value and external scarcity criteria. However
- IN very special cases, where (a) the goods in question have easily quantifiable objective properties, where (b) supplier and consumer numbers are large, such that no individual consumber and producer market behaviour does influence the market in a significant way, and (c) there is perfect information about the goods etc among all consumers, an d (d) the market is long-running and stable, the market price is not a bad approximation to some notion of scarecity. Typical market of this kind are those for potatoes. Health-care and education are typical examples of goods that do not lead themselves to such 'good' markets.
- Although Markets in general do not converge towards describing scarcity approprately, in fact can be arbitrarily wrong, can nevertheless be rational behaviour (where markets exist), because they in fact represent some approximation to what is generally believed about scarecity. The more unequal the market participants in wealth, the more this summary is biased towards reflecting the beliefs of the wealthy. Since they are more powerful, their opinions matter more (for better or worse) and it is rational to be aware of their beliefs. So what market price gives is an easily accesible summary of beliefs about scarcity. It is a quantification of belief.
vimothy
yurp
Is this really so hard to understand? There is no instrinsic, "true" value for a good, only what the market is prepared to pay. A bottle of water, for instance, doesn't have an intrinsic value based on the addition of the constant capital and quantity of labour time required to produce it (Marx of course, believed presisely that - that profit merely represented the underpaying of workers for their labour), it depends on various factors. Standing by a fresh water spring, one might be unprepared to pay anything at all for a bottle of water, regardless of the labour time consumed in its production. However, in the desert at midday one might feel very different. The price of a commodity might fall in response to the discovery of techniques which shift the use of production inputs to another material. There is no true price for the commodity, however, merely what the market is prepared to pay at any given time. Hence the "value" of the good is subjective, contingent upon other things (such as the amount of demand).
Flipping coins is actually a lot closer to the Marxist-Leninist approach - see the widespread calculational chaos of any communist regime for proof - and a better approximation of "intrinsic value", i.e. a totally spurious value that GOSPLAN just pulled out of their asses.
I think we're going around in circles now. I will try to answer your other responses though, borderpolice.
borderpolice
Well-known member
You should read what I said! IF the value of a good is only what the market pays for it, then that's tautological and there would be no use for markets. This is a problem with your position, not mine.