The reality is that just having "a degree" in a generic sense is no longer the magical ticket to a middle class lifestyle that it was in 1960. It's become too common and is no longer much of a differentiator in most job markets.
A related issue is that many, many people have degrees in non-marketable subjects. Whatever one may think of the intrinsic value of studying history, philosophy, English literature, anthropology, art history, etc. there simply is not much demand in our society for specialists in these fields -- and so you wind up picking kale for rich people, with a pile of student loan debt to pay.
We utterly fail to communicate that fact to young students entering college. We do the opposite: follow your dream, follow your passion for anthropology or whatever and it will all somehow work out in the end. Turns out that's not actually true. Telling students that it is true is what leads to indignation and this sense of entitlement. Society just doesn't need more than a tiny number of anthropologists. Whether one thinks that society ought to need more of them is irrelevant.
It's disingenous to keep encouraging kids to get degrees in non-marketable subjects, to keep pretending that economic reality should not be a factor in what you choose to study.
That contract has been broken. I think it was stupid to begin with but it was a message very clearly sent from generations, society, government that went before. As you say, it still is.
So does the writer have reason to be aggrieved? I think so. However, at some stage in an adults life they need to do some critical thinking and independently decide whats the optimal way to climb the pay ladder (legally).
That critical thinking is something that is simply not taught in schools. Perhaps its not teachable at all.
Was this ever true for a Masters in Creative Writing? My understanding is that this class of degree has always been a social signal for "my family is so wealthy, I will never need to work."
I think we need to do a far better job of informing students in high school about how their choice of major in college influences their income. At the very least, we need to discourage them from taking on large amounts of debt for majors where their expected income will be low. Even if we could convince them, many students probably don't know how hard it is to live off of $30-50k per year, and at that point in their lives (17-20 years old) they might argue that they would rather major in Women's Studies or Philosophy.
Unfortunately, I doubt colleges would allow substantial guidance in this area during "Introduction to College" classes that students take their Freshman year for a variety of reasons. Some professors would argue that college is not meant to prepare people for the workforce (it makes you a better citizen and more worldly), but that really hasn't been true for many years.
Twenty three paragraphs but no message.
She entered higher education believing that having "a degree" (in any generic subject) would do that, and it didn't.
The message is "tax the rich".
I think much of the HN community is accustomed to a style of discourse that deals in big ideas with immediate applications: "This is where tech is going." "How I hacked the YC interview process and got in." "Here's what's wrong with the Javascript dependency mess."
Much of the world doesn't think this way, though. For much of the world, their goal is to be heard, and to be understood, and to have their existence as an individual human being validated. When articles speaking from this angle come out, people react with "What's the point?" And the point is precisely that people react with "What's the point?", and they shouldn't.
The author said as much in her last sentence: "It’s the work I want to own." But there's no way to make that connection to readers who are accustomed to thinking of the big picture without trivializing the little picture.
Related video clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM-gZintWDc
It's one long life story (stories?), and there is nothing in it supporting either the title or subtitle. Yes, her upbringing was bad, but I wanted to know what happened personally to her after graduating that she's where she is now. Or even better: what exactly could have helped her (by government or society) getting to where she want to be in life? Those details are no where to be found.
And I'd like to hear others' opinion on this, but I don't consider her writing to be good. Maybe if she want to be a writer, that has something to do with it?
You must be new to the geekosphere, so let me answer that for you: People like to white knight visible minorities and women while also pretending that everyone can do what they like for a living and that the rich should foot the bill for it.
Her proposition is that having any degree entitles one to a middle class lifestyle.
This is an archaic notion based on the economic situation in the US before the 1960s, before the government began subsidizing mass higher education. Bachelor's degrees were expensive and rare then, so that actually worked.
Now, we have millions of people with non-marketable bachelor's degrees picking kale for a living, because nobody told them that the economic situation has shifted radically since then and bachelor's degrees don't guarantee you a nice job anymore.
Her writing would be fine for long-form fiction. She gives details, images, feelings. It doesn't work as well in an article like this. But if she writes novels, she could turn out to be good. (Or she could not be. Or she could be good and still not make any money. Novels aren't a guaranteed path to riches, even if you're good.)
>listing the indignities she felt working these jobs with a laconic intensity and steady determination: washing the house’s windows inside and out, cleaning the mattresses and box springs, scrubbing the floors on her knees, a lunch of a cheese sandwich and a glass of milk offered by a client that was quickly rejected, getting paid $3 a day.
I'd argue that smartphone in hand, greater than minimum wage rate, flexible work schedule and the option of going to post secondary education constitutes more than a "marginal" improvement. This person is claiming that she's no better off than 2 generations prior, and but in reality is using a peer comparison to try and prove it. Short of absolute equality, someone has to be behind someone else. Someone has to have "less". But if that relative "Less" is consistently more in an absolute sense, with each generation, then clearly things are getting better.
The "poor" of today have more food, more tvs, better technology, greater rights than several generations back. Largely because the rising tide is lifting the vast majority of ships.
No doubt the author has things better than generations before (though you do have to factor in things like increased expectations as a cost for this) but if this was the only measure then social equality would be move much slower than it is.
Some sources of unfairness might be the disingenuous nature of post secondary education, selling assets (degrees) far beyond their value. Being lied to maybe the biggest claim the author has. But I dont see gender or race being a part of that claim. The lie is unfair irrespective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the...
Press coverage: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/america-...
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/07/the_myth_destroying_america_...
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2...
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america...
Original research / scholarly articles:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103115...
By the way, we put this article in the second-chance pool (described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10705926 and the other links there) and removed the penalty normally applied to buzzfeed.com. We did that because on first glance, at least, it's far better than the median article in this category: it speaks substantively from first-hand experience.
This is also a category that tends to set off flamewars. Hopefully commenters will respond to the substance of the piece and that won't happen this time.
I don't know about easy, but I know from personal experience that it's possible, at least in some cases. I did it. And I saw other people do it.
And while it's not politically correct to say this, I firmly believe that a significant factor in whether (some) people escape their circumstances or not is simply desire and work ethic. Just to share an interesting anecdote... when I was in college, I had a friend who went to my same school. He didn't have a car, and the campus was about 12-15 miles from his home. Did he let that deter him? F%!# no... dude walked to school the days he couldn't get a ride. This guy had a burning passion to improve his life and he wasn't going to let something as trivial as lack of transportation stop him. Now, how many people are willing to commit to that level of effort to raise themselves up? I don't know, but my experience suggests that it's a pretty small percentage.
Or train for jobs that actually pay, like plumbing.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/may/15/fast-track-plum...
Poverty is pretty complicated. Escaping it is too.
The four paths I've seen for people who make it in film/tv:
* Have a family member who gets you your first job.
* Have rich parents who completely subsidize your work for a few years and provide anonymous funding for your first feature film.
* Have upper-middle class parents who partially subsidize your work for a few years, and get ready to be an assistant for 3-25 years while you build connections with the business bros that determine your future.
* Have lower-middle class parents. Be extraordinarily driven and ignore all material needs while you win festivals and get noticed.
The lower you are on the list, the more effort it takes to maximize your probability of success. Realistically, almost no one makes it from the bottom category.
I can't tell who the more entitled person is. The wealthy woman who believes she is entitled to have her discerning tastes met, or the author who believes she is entitled to work as an author regardless of her commercial success.
No excuse to treat people who work for you poorly, but I think the entitlement runs both ways.
That doesn't follow at all. Just because people do chores it doesn't mean they aren't able to live or that they are less than human.
Are you saying that only subhumans do chores?
She sees herself as someone working her way up into a freelance writing career. Her customers, her bosses and her family view her as the kind of person unlikely to do anything more than what her parents and grandparents did: bounce around through low-wage, low-prestige jobs like Instacart their entire working life.
When everyone around you assumes you won't make it higher, it's hard not to wonder if they're right. And society assumes African-Americans are much less likely to achieve career success. [1]
[1] See http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html for instance: "Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with African-American names was much smaller."
Her skin color is not relevant to her picking kale for a living. She's picking kale because she got two college degrees in non-marketable subjects, not because she's black.
Not every topic contains a hidden narrative of latent racist oppression just waiting for an overeducated postmodernist to come along and deconstruct it, even if it does involve people of a visibly different ethnic background than their employer.
"Our national history is rife with examples of black Americans facing exclusion from labor movements, as well as general workforce discrimination. It’s not hard to see how the effects of these policies have trickled down. I see my family’s work history, rendered briefly here, as a particular kind of ingenuity necessary for black Americans."
