>And while this was a sample of one it really opened my eyes to sense of entitlement that comes with growing up in a wealthy vs poor enviroment.
In the UK, the primary selling points of the Public School system (i.e. private schools priced far out of the reach of most of the population) are three things - social confidence, entitlement and a sense of superiority, and networking.
Conversely, the primary products of the state educational system are low confidence, low expectations, and exclusion from social capital.
It's a perfectly rigid and self-sustaining caste system. Of course a few individuals break out of it, but the social and economic effect is deadening.
Although wealth and opportunity aren't fairly distributed, there's a more subtly destructive effect on the rich. I've known people who grew up with huge privilege, and some of them have been very successful, because all that education and opportunity allowed them to explore and develop their talents.
But I've known others who have been crushed by their backgrounds. They can appear successful outwardly, but in fact they've never developed an independent sense of themselves outside of their families and their wealth.
This usually happens in families that are externally wealthy but emotionally austere or even neglectful. It's a particularly toxic combination socially because these people can end up having wealth, influence, and power, but their emotions and humanity are stunted and crippled.
Wealth inequalities can cover up these deeper issues of neglect and sometimes outright abuse. And if these people become politically influential, they tend to repeat their abuse on a much wider and more destructive scale.
There's also a lot of complicated signaling that says I Am Elite Like You. Hard to pick up on or transmit out if you're not in on it, and I don't think people in it are doing it consciously.
I'm from a region of the UK that when people, especially abroad, hear me speak they ask why I don't sound as expected. They have been to where I am from or met other people from there and think I sound "posh". I'm not posh at all but grew up in the middle of nowhere and that's just the accent people there have. Posh is my friend Graham who pronounces his name as "grah-am". Graham's annual school fees where half the annual wage of the shop manager where I worked as a student.
> In the UK, the primary selling points of the Public School system ... are social confidence, entitlement and a sense of superiority, and networking.
> It's a perfectly rigid and self-sustaining caste system.
The problem with your statement is that all 3 qualities you have listed could actually be acquired at the cost of $0, either by the parents raising their children differently or by the child itself if it desires so.
Therefore I can't agree that it is anything resembling a caste system. (in such systems there'd be use of force for anyone who steps out of line)
The only way that I see how you could argue that these examples prove that it's a caste system is if you denied that there is free will. Yes, if there's no free will then we only react predictably to the environment like mindless machines so being unable to put your children into private schools will cause them to be poor if they don't have some amazing genetical quality that allows them to transcend the competition.
I strongly oppose this line of thinking. Why? Because it leads to Nihilism and a sense that everything (including your own life) is worthless. It would also allow you to do whatever you want without following any moral code if you take this philosophy to its logical extreme.
Edit: What I mean by that is that it's not like parents do not have choices, no matter how poor. They can teach their kids moral values and discipline, they can encourage them to do something useful with their lives. And the child also can do something about its situation once it gets older.
The economist Thomas Sowell made the very strong argument in one of his books that it is actually culture (= set of all social norms and rules) that determines success of a group. For example some Asian cultures or Jews have always been highly successful, no matter where they immigrated to and no matter how much they were persecuted. In case of the Jews they've faced unequal treatment and persecution for thousands of years.
So what makes them able to overcome all odds? They raise their children with certain values (I doubt its the religious values) that make them (on average) outcompete the children of all others.
So it doesn't matter that much if I'm poor, if I'm rich or what skin color I happen to be born with. If I'm white and from the upper class and decide to use the N word in every other sentence, dress like a Gangsta Rapper with pants down to my knees and have no discipline or work ethic then I'm likely going to fail hard in life. If I'm black and decide to learn how to speak eloquently and dress well then I might become the US president.
Culture is learned behavior that is transmitted from one person to another. If your parents don't know elite cultural norms and your schoolmates don't know elite cultural norms, then how exactly is a child supposed to learn elite accents and elite cultural norms?
There is a staggering number of parents who are struggling to keep their children fed and in a moderately stable home life, and a staggering number of kids who go to school hungry nonetheless. More than any other first-world nation, the US tolerates a high rate of poverty and economic inequality, which is what drives our average standardized test performance down (for example). "Half the children need to starve to motivate the others" is not only an obscene moral argument, it drags everybody down.
> Culture is learned behaviour that is transmitted from one person to another.
Essentially yes, though I don't mean to say that some religion or some culture in the sense of history, music, food and arts is lesser than others. All I'm saying is that some cultures strongly reinforce certain qualities that help children being successful. I'm not a Jew or an Asian, but I do try to learn what is useful about these cultures so I can apply it myself.
> If your parents don't know elite cultural norms and your schoolmates don't know elite cultural norms, then how exactly is a child supposed to learn elite accents and elite cultural norms?
I did exactly that which you seem to believe is impossible or very hard. I'm from a immigrant family that started with nothing in a western EU country and I became part of the top 1%.
What I can tell you about my experience is that I did not know the elite accents but some universal qualities like strong discipline (I never did any kind of drug), dedication to work hard and the wish to compete (I'm not the kind of guy that uses his elbows to get in front) were reinforced by my parents. I also tried (not always successful) to keep away from people who act destructive or totally lack focus in life.
Now about the part with the struggling parents and hungry children:
First of all I believe it is an extreme exaggeration to say that half the children need to starve, I actually believe that no child needs to starve in the US or go to school hungry.
All kinds of welfare institutions are in place that would prevent that from happening. But we still both know that it does happen, even though everyone gets the necessary resources from the government to prevent that from happening. (at least here in the EU)
I'm willing to bet that in most cases it is caused by bad decisions of the parents. Decisions like abusing alcohol, drugs or wasting money. (gambling, buying products they can't afford)
The question is if it is even possible to prevent this from happening, even if you expand the welfare state. I doubt it. I believe this issue will always exist as there'll always be people that make lots of very bad decisions because they have the freedom to do so. (I assume you don't want to take everyones freedom in the process of achieving equal outcomes)
On the other hand the welfare state incentivises those who are dependant to stay dependant (a job would have to be really well paid to offset the tax punishment and very safe as well because if they are fired early they will often disqualify for welfare payments for a few months - could be fatal for many) and this situation also wears these people mentally down and causes divorces, which leads to a further breakdown of society as a whole. (see divorce rate today - or see birth rates in the EU which is in the process of going full Socialist)
And then there are tons of regulations that make it very expensive to hire someone for businesses (minimum wage, bureaucratic red tape) which further worsens the situation for poor people. A hundred years ago anyone with two arms and two legs could find a job in the US, even if it was only day - to - day. We certainly do not want that everyone stays in low pay jobs, but starting doing _something_ would change the life of most persons who are dependant on welfare today. Chances are they'd learn new skills and become more valuable as an employee over time and it would on top of that improve their sense of being in control of their own life.
But the way it is now you can't ever find a job if you have no skills whatsoever. How could a business pay an Afghan guy who barely speaks English the government mandated $15 minimum wage without going broke? The business wont and the Afghan guy will stay dependant and will have to live in a depressing situation.
If you are interested I can recommend the Milton Friedman series "Free to Choose" (from the 1980s), in specific Part 5 which is all about the welfare state:
In the UK, the primary selling points of the Public School system (i.e. private schools priced far out of the reach of most of the population) are three things - social confidence, entitlement and a sense of superiority, and networking.
Conversely, the primary products of the state educational system are low confidence, low expectations, and exclusion from social capital.
It's a perfectly rigid and self-sustaining caste system. Of course a few individuals break out of it, but the social and economic effect is deadening.
Although wealth and opportunity aren't fairly distributed, there's a more subtly destructive effect on the rich. I've known people who grew up with huge privilege, and some of them have been very successful, because all that education and opportunity allowed them to explore and develop their talents.
But I've known others who have been crushed by their backgrounds. They can appear successful outwardly, but in fact they've never developed an independent sense of themselves outside of their families and their wealth.
This usually happens in families that are externally wealthy but emotionally austere or even neglectful. It's a particularly toxic combination socially because these people can end up having wealth, influence, and power, but their emotions and humanity are stunted and crippled.
Wealth inequalities can cover up these deeper issues of neglect and sometimes outright abuse. And if these people become politically influential, they tend to repeat their abuse on a much wider and more destructive scale.