@cljack These are people who sees a person who can socially function in different situations and says, “that person is SO FAKE!”
Teaching a generation of people that “having self control and making personal choices about how you act and respond is ‘masking’” has done a lot of damage.
Let’s be clear. The high schools on the bottom right are *public* high schools with a *lot* of socioeconomic diversity. They do not exclusively have old money and new money students. Rather, a school like Stuy is often the *only* option for many lower income or working class people
Elite feeder schools dominate Ivy League admissions and have long served as the primary pipeline for both old money and new money students. These are the institutions where America’s most elite families send their children to prepare for their future roles in society — far beyond mere education.
Roughly 20 high schools consistently send more students to Ivy League colleges than most others combined.
America’s wealthiest families have long funneled their children into these schools, many of which have been reliable Ivy League feeders since the 1600s and 1700s.
I’d imagine this becomes a new age source of marital tension: the uninformed social media-pilled SAHM being frustrated with her husband because they can’t afford things the online moms or dual income families have.
I think it’s a combination of influencers setting unrealistic standards (i.e. living off ad $) and the ignorance that comes with never having worked a job. Most low income SAHMs had their kids young and had little to no time in the real world engaging with money and other adults.
By far the most frustrating posts on the mom forum are when the SAHM’s ask about finances. I don’t really know what I was expecting, but a vast majority of their partners make less than 60K per year and they wonder why they can’t spend like the moms who are doctors and lawyers.
1000 pages to say “If investments grow faster than the economy, the people with investments will get much richer than those without.” A waste of time.
Academic Infinite Jest for leftists.
The fanfare over that book was like nothing I’ve ever seen for a non fiction work. And the entire tome rests on a policy suggestion that’s a complete nonstarter.
Important to remember that the reason anyone even bothers responding to that crap thread by Piketty is because when Capital In The 21st Century came out more than a decade ago, economists and media were falling over themselves to give it glowing reviews (because he incorporated Balzac and Jane Austen into his analysis).
The Economist did a *series* on it - I’ve never seen them do that for a book before. It is the most reviewed book I can recall ever (Tyler Cowen, to his credit, was one of the first and few to give it a critical review).
That ended up raising the status of a guy I would charitably refer to as dim giving him the confidence to put out that rubbish.
boomer origin stories are always like "Finally at 35 years old I decided to get serious with my life -- fortunately there was a national shortage of hedge fund analysts"
Zohran Mamdani's general political/policy strategy has been to take things that already exist and advertise them as if they're new, with a Gen Z design aesthetic.
This would merely be silly if the UK didn’t have an avalanche of urgent issues for its government to address.
Given that isn’t the case, it’s asinine for any government official to spend even a second on this.
3.5 million unmarried couples living together in the UK stand to gain stronger protections under Labour.
Too many couples have limited rights if their relationship ends or their partner dies - even after years together or raising children.
Labour is consulting on reforms to improve financial security, strengthen protections for survivors of domestic abuse and create a fairer system that reflects modern relationships.