Let's not forget the social effects of the class system. What better way to destroy social cohesiveness than this? Its similar to public schools without uniforms.
Within my rural, southern public school system,I was clearly marked out in the southern caste system as "white trash" in school because I wore $15 canvas sneakers rather than $60 name-brand shoes, jeans and t-shirt rather than polo shirt and khakis, etc.
In the adult world, the caste system still exists in a rather potent form: dating. If you are a man who is marked out in some way as earning less, you will get significantly less attention from women in general. The OKCupid data has confirmed this effect for men over the age of 23, and it is a very potent one.
In my experiences (both state and private schools, in the UK) the problem with no uniform was that it marked you out as cool or not-cool, not your economic status. And some of my classes included kids with working class parents and kids from millionaire families.
Sure it's still not great, as if you can't afford to buy the cool clothes then you're being judged none-the-less - but I think it's a lot less bad to be judged as not cool than as "white trash", and at least in my situation it was possible to be understanding ("his parents don't have much money, so I'm not going to mock him for having cheap shoes").
I wonder which of our experiences is more common. I hope mine - but I have no idea.
1. True segregation where the rich go to a separate school all-together / have separate planes, etc.
2. Everyone wears the same lowest-common denominator clothes / travel in the same travel class?
Each of these alternatives is economically inefficient, and the poor suffer more as a result as their fares cease to be subsidised by the rich.
I'd rather fly $500 return to Tokyo, because some rich guy upfront is paying $4000 for a flat bed, than pay $2000 because some left-wing loon demands everyone has the same class of travel.
"I'd rather fly $500 return to Tokyo, because some rich guy upfront is paying $4000 for a flat bed"
NB: I'm 40 and didn't have these issues when I was younger/fitter/elasticker.
I pay $10k+ for a flat bed to Asia because I find that I can be off the plane and ready for a meeting the next business day, with no need to take an extra day or two on either end. Little seats that don't recline all the way are a recipe for back pain, neck pain, or just general low-grade misery, as if air travel isn't annoying enough. It's not really about "rich" (although I'm glad I have the option) but more about productivity and not losing time. The same thing happened with Saturday stay-overs on round trips (I don't know if they still do this) or one-way tickets being as or more expensive than round trips, because business customers often prefer to be home on weekends.
All that said, I generally book business and upgrade myself to first, so I'm not feeling the full $10-15k pressure myself. Also, I only book international first on vacations, when it's miles/points anyway, for which the spendy fares help out a lot.
Plus, I really don't want to fight with 500 people over two toilets. That gets more important when you get old. :-)
At the end the original article states pretty clearly what the alternative is: "Everyone wears the same great clothes, but pay different prices for it."
Even the quoted $15 (all JPKab could afford) is more than enough to meet Nike's manufacturing cost, for example, so under the suggested scheme he could wear the same clothes others do; and if Nike could charge different people different amounts, it would prefer to also receive the $15 than not receive it. (If it wouldn't impact its ability to charge its normal prices.)
In practice every company strives for price discrimination, by making something for every price point without hurting the higher ones.
"In the adult world, the caste system still exists in a rather potent form: dating. If you are a man who is marked out in some way as earning less"
This isn't really a caste system, it's just human nature. Women are generally attracted to men that have ambition and a good job is a good indicator of this.
Would you consider ugliness a caste system as well? Women that are less attractive will get less attention (and dates) on and offline.
Comments
Let's not forget the social effects of the class system. What better way to destroy social cohesiveness than this? Its similar to public schools without uniforms.
Within my rural, southern public school system,I was clearly marked out in the southern caste system as "white trash" in school because I wore $15 canvas sneakers rather than $60 name-brand shoes, jeans and t-shirt rather than polo shirt and khakis, etc.
In the adult world, the caste system still exists in a rather potent form: dating. If you are a man who is marked out in some way as earning less, you will get significantly less attention from women in general. The OKCupid data has confirmed this effect for men over the age of 23, and it is a very potent one.
In my experiences (both state and private schools, in the UK) the problem with no uniform was that it marked you out as cool or not-cool, not your economic status. And some of my classes included kids with working class parents and kids from millionaire families.
Sure it's still not great, as if you can't afford to buy the cool clothes then you're being judged none-the-less - but I think it's a lot less bad to be judged as not cool than as "white trash", and at least in my situation it was possible to be understanding ("his parents don't have much money, so I'm not going to mock him for having cheap shoes").
I wonder which of our experiences is more common. I hope mine - but I have no idea.
But what are the alternatives?
1. True segregation where the rich go to a separate school all-together / have separate planes, etc.
2. Everyone wears the same lowest-common denominator clothes / travel in the same travel class?
Each of these alternatives is economically inefficient, and the poor suffer more as a result as their fares cease to be subsidised by the rich.
I'd rather fly $500 return to Tokyo, because some rich guy upfront is paying $4000 for a flat bed, than pay $2000 because some left-wing loon demands everyone has the same class of travel.
"I'd rather fly $500 return to Tokyo, because some rich guy upfront is paying $4000 for a flat bed"
NB: I'm 40 and didn't have these issues when I was younger/fitter/elasticker.
I pay $10k+ for a flat bed to Asia because I find that I can be off the plane and ready for a meeting the next business day, with no need to take an extra day or two on either end. Little seats that don't recline all the way are a recipe for back pain, neck pain, or just general low-grade misery, as if air travel isn't annoying enough. It's not really about "rich" (although I'm glad I have the option) but more about productivity and not losing time. The same thing happened with Saturday stay-overs on round trips (I don't know if they still do this) or one-way tickets being as or more expensive than round trips, because business customers often prefer to be home on weekends.
All that said, I generally book business and upgrade myself to first, so I'm not feeling the full $10-15k pressure myself. Also, I only book international first on vacations, when it's miles/points anyway, for which the spendy fares help out a lot.
Plus, I really don't want to fight with 500 people over two toilets. That gets more important when you get old. :-)
At the end the original article states pretty clearly what the alternative is: "Everyone wears the same great clothes, but pay different prices for it."
Even the quoted $15 (all JPKab could afford) is more than enough to meet Nike's manufacturing cost, for example, so under the suggested scheme he could wear the same clothes others do; and if Nike could charge different people different amounts, it would prefer to also receive the $15 than not receive it. (If it wouldn't impact its ability to charge its normal prices.)
In practice every company strives for price discrimination, by making something for every price point without hurting the higher ones.
"In the adult world, the caste system still exists in a rather potent form: dating. If you are a man who is marked out in some way as earning less"
This isn't really a caste system, it's just human nature. Women are generally attracted to men that have ambition and a good job is a good indicator of this.
Would you consider ugliness a caste system as well? Women that are less attractive will get less attention (and dates) on and offline.