Weekly Roundup: Pain-Free Potlatch And The Permanently Reclined Seat Edition

It’s a problem as old as the idea of ownership itself: In any stable society without external pressure, the majority of wealth will become concentrated over time in the hands of a few people. “Them what has, gets.” Rich people have options and choices, which typically lead to further accumulation of wealth, while poor people are forced to make harder decisions with greater consequences. Admittedly, this process happened a little slower in historical societies that didn’t have mechanisms like payday loans and COVID-19 to accelerate the forcible transfer of wealth from the lower to the upper class, but it happened nonetheless.

The ancient answer to this is a potlatch, in which the wealthiest members of a community make substantial gifts to the poorer members of the tribe — or, in some cases, simply destroy items of value. The potlatch benefits everyone; it confers social prestige on the people who are giving their stuff away, while enriching the poorer members of the tribe. In the case of “destruction” potlatches, it reduces wealth disparity, envy, and resentment.

The history of the 21st Century so far has largely been a tale of immensely wealthy people and institutions taking ruthless steps to ensure their permanent position on the top of the food chain, coupled with an increasing conviction on the part of those same people and institutions that they thoroughly deserve their position by virtue of an unassailable moral superiority. Ah, but how does the fabled one percent demonstrate that moral superiority? The obvious answer is to throw a society-wide potlatch — but the problem with a potlatch is that it tends to level the playing field, however mildly, in the favor of the 99%. Could there be a way to obtain the social and moral benefits of a potlatch while retaining all your stuff? Better yet, could there be a way to have a potlatch that actively harms your closest competitors, while at the same time conferring the desired social benefits on you and yours?

I’m pleased, by which I mean horrified, to announce that such a thing is indeed possible. It’s happening right now, in fact.

To understand how this works, start by understanding that we now live in a world of externalities. What is an externality? It’s the impact of a two-party (or one-party) decision on a third party with no control over that decision, usually negative but not always. My friend-of-a-friend Ryan Holiday once wrote the very simple idea that

Never recline your seat on an airplane. Yes, it gives you more room–but ultimately at the expense of someone else. In economics, they call this an externality. It’s bad. Don’t do it.

Environmental pollution is the classic example of an externality: my factory makes me rich, and it offers you a product that you want, but it also poisons the water upstream from a village and makes everyone who lives there sick. The people who live in the village don’t use my product, don’t receive any income from my factory, and they have no ability to keep me from polluting the water. They suffer the externality. Anthropogenic global warming, if you believe in it, is an outstanding example of an externality. I buy a V-8 pickup truck and enjoy it, General Motors makes money from my purpose, and some tribe in the Pacific Ocean loses their island because of rising sea levels.

I have written in the past that pretty much every single policy decision made in the United States since 1964 or thereabouts has been designed to decrease the cost of labor and/or raise the price of existing assets. The externality of this is that it tends to decrease the net worth of people who have income and savings, with that decrease corresponding to an increase in the net worth of people who have capital and investments. Since the election of President Biden, the country has been on an inflationary tear in which the cost of pretty much everything goes up while incomes remain the same. This can be understood as a rough externality of sorts. You, as an individual, had no control of the election, but now you’re paying Amazon and other corporations about four percent more for the same goods and services you were getting in 2020. Did your pay go up four percent? Probably not.

If you’re a working-class stiff, then most of the externalities of the American economy wind up harming you in some way — but the people who really run the country have the ability to make externalities work for them. Which leads me to the idea of the pain-free potlatch, in which the wealthy would enjoy all the social privilege that comes with holding a potlatch while making someone else foot the bill. Could such a thing really happen?

Let’s start by looking at Harvard admissions, as in the image that opens this column. Harvard recently won a court case that grants them the right to discriminate by race. If you think this is fundamentally un-American, too bad. That’s the way things are now. Harvard expresses interest in African-American students with an SAT of 1100 or above. White students need a 1310; Asian students need a 1380. That’s not what you need to get in the door, of course; the Harvard Crimson found that

A Crimson analysis of the previously confidential dataset — which spans admissions cycles starting with the Class of 2000 and ends with the cycle for the Class of 2017 — revealed that Asian-Americans admitted to Harvard earned an average SAT score of 767 across all sections. Every section of the SAT has a maximum score of 800. By comparison, white admits earned an average score of 745 across all sections, Hispanic-American admits earned an average of 718, Native-American and Native-Hawaiian admits an average of 712, and African-American admits an average of 704.

To put this in perspective, the average African-American Harvard admission didn’t quite measure up to the average Ohio State admission across all races. Your humble author took the SAT at the age of fourteen, having not given a moment’s worth of thought to it before the morning of said SAT, and sleeping through part of it because I had a BMX race that evening and I wanted to be in good shape for said race. (What can I say; I didn’t want to go to college and was only taking the test because my father made me do it.) My score wasn’t even good enough to get me into Notre Dame — but I’d have sailed into Harvard with ease, had I not been, ah, an Ohio cracker.

Harvard didn’t spend millions of dollars fighting for their right to discriminate by race just on a whim. To the contrary, the idea that Harvard discriminates by race is critical to the image of the school, its faculty, its students, and its alumni. Harvard’s race-based policies amount to a massive potlatch, since a Harvard degree guarantees an upper-class lifestyle to all but its most indolent and dissipated graduates. Every year, Harvard gives away a thousand or so memberships in the American dream to people who otherwise would be at the University of Dayton. This is a potlatch of which the most powerful Native American chief could only dream: to mint a high school auditorium’s worth of millionaires once a year, for eternity!

But wait, it gets better. Harvard has been setting all-time records lately for legacy admissions. The Class of 2022 was over 36% legacies. Are you ready to hear something amazing? Only forty percent of Harvard students are white. Fifteen years ago, about half of white students were legacies. Betcha it’s closer to ninety percent now.

It’s obvious to see, therefore, that the Harvard potlatch is basically an externality. Harvard gains immense prestige for its race-based discrimination, while at the same time ensuring that all the “right” white students are accepted via the legacy channel. The “gift” of the race-based admissions is taken out of non-legacy admissions of other races. The “diversity” slot that is given to an African-American student isn’t taken away from a legacy applicant. Instead, it is taken from an Asian-American or white applicant.

There is no social privilege in saying, “Uh, I had a 1580 SAT and should have gotten into Harvard, but they gave my slot to someone else.” In fact, saying this publicly would be a good way to ensure that you were very difficult to hire in the future. (The SAT is three sections now, not two — I think.) But there is tremendous social privilege in being the Harvard alumni who donates heavily to defend the school’s race discrimination while remaining dead certain that your own kid will get into Harvard. You gain something and it costs you little or nothing in exchange. The cost is borne by someone you’ll never meet.

Oh, and there’s another benefit. Ivy League admissions have typically been the ladder by which middle-class people reach the upper class. This ladder has been unapologetically pulled up as part of the pain-free potlatch. Consider John Updike, who grew up as the child of a single mother in Pennsylvania but received a full scholarship to Harvard, which in turn launched his writing career. The John Updike of 2021, whoever he is, will be going to what they a “directional” university (think EASTERN Kentucky) instead. His slot has been potlatched. Meanwhile, the grandchild of the actual Updike is free to attend Harvard, as a legacy.

Thus the current social order is preserved in amber for the rest of history. If you made it into Harvard fifty years ago, congratulations! Your family can always go to Harvard, where they will have the privilege of competing against people with a 1400 SAT instead of a 1580 SAT.

(Break time: It should be noted that the current orthodoxy believes the SAT to be fundamentally racist, and that therefore it is easier for an Asian kid to get a 1580 than it is for an African-American kid to get a 1400. I have no idea if that is true and wouldn’t know how to go about proving that. It does seems to be the case, however, that higher SAT scores translate into increased success later in life, and that this effect is race-blind; in other words, getting a 1500 SAT correlates to a certain success level for white, Asian, and Black kids pretty much the same. If, on the other hand, the racist-SAT theory is correct, then we should see a significant change in the racial composition of America’s upper class twenty years from now. Let’s all come back to this page and comment on it at that point.)

Of course, if this pain-free potlatch was limited to Harvard admissions then it wouldn’t be that big of a deal. (It would still be a kind of big deal, because Harvard graduates are omnipresent in public life.) Once you see this pattern, however, you can’t help but see it everywhere you go. Almost every major corporation in America sponsors some kind of internship program in which the only allowable internship candidates are “diverse” — or children of executives. The executives reap the kudos for making their internships “accessible”, while ensuring that their children are still given plum positions.

Goldman Sachs advocates for diversity. Donates to diversity. Enforces diversity on its business partners. But Goldman Sachs is not diverse. Amazon didn’t have a single “diverse” executive, so they changed the definition of executive. Now they have a few. Target, the most diversity-obsessed store full of Chinese junk in North America… isn’t so hot on executive diversity.

Probably the prime example of a pain-free potlatcher would be Robin DiAngelo, the person who coined the phrase “white fragility”. She earns millions of dollars lecturing bored corporate drones about the evils of whiteness while being, uh, totally white. In doing so, she is both “on the right side of history” and quite well-compensated. No doubt, some of those corporate drones will walk out of her meetings determined not to hire any more white people for anything — unless, of course, that person is Robin DiAngelo, pulling down $40,000 for another one-hour corporate lecture.

Heck of a living, if you can manage it.

Not all of the potlatching is related to race or class, of course. The bailout of General Motors was a potlatch at multiple levels; the Obama Administration gave taxpayer money to GM, which then arguably used the money to expand its facilities in China. Everybody made out except for the taxpayer, and who cares about him? Every time an auto executive makes headlines by blabbing about an “all-electric future” that won’t take place until after that executive leaves office, that’s pain-free potlatching. The executive gets the warm fuzzies for going green, the government enjoys yet another public display of fealty, and the actual implementation of that suicidal strategy is deferred to some person down the road, for whom it will be a decided externality.

We can’t even get any authentic robber-baron philanthropy anymore. There are no more Carnegies or Vanderbilts to fund institutions in the public good. Today’s super-rich use their money to influence public policy in their own further interest. Mark Zuckerberg spent $300 million to ensure that the election went his way after Trump started looking at properly regulating Facebook. What, did you think he was going to start a library or something like that? And, of course, the net result of that $300M spend will be a legislative environment that enables him to earn additional billions.

Yet Zuckerberg was still feted for his role in “preserving democracy”. Who suffered the externality? One in five divorces in the United States cites Facebook as a factor; in the UK, it’s one in three. I guess all those children of divorce can sleep easy at night knowing that Facebook is doing okay regardless.

Winston Smith wrote “I understand HOW: I do not understand WHY.” O’Brien tells him “Power is tearing human minds apart and putting them back together in new shapes of your own choosing… If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.” Yet Orwell could not quite conceive of a world in which the oligarchy needed to be both powerful and admirable, where it would clothe the naked exercise of power and preference in the robes of justice and decency. And that’s what he have now. The people who run the future will always be doing the right thing, and someone else will always pay the price. If you want a vision of the future, reader, imagine a first-class airline passenger reclining into the lap of a coach passenger, forever.

* * *

For Hagerty, I reviewed a Benz, told a Lamborghini story, and reviewed the ethics of co-ed collisions.

63 Replies to “Weekly Roundup: Pain-Free Potlatch And The Permanently Reclined Seat Edition”

  1. MrFixit1599

    Jack, you are killing it over at Hagerty. Sam Smith, Jason Cammisa, Matt Farah, Chris Jacob’s coming soon. Other than here, its about the only website I still visit at least daily, if not multiple times daily.

    Reply
    • Jack Baruth Post author

      It’s true we are little rich-kid heavy on the video side, but Jason and Matt take their work at least kinda-sorta seriously… I appreciate your readership!

      Reply
  2. John C.

    Understanding that neither me nor any of my ancestors went to Harvard, so my progeny would be excluded, I think Harvard would be a much healthier private institution if it were over 90% legacy preferably with multiple generations. The institution was built to guide the next generation into their adult place in society. That 100 years ago and maybe still 75 years ago it did so well at that it was inundated with applications from upstarts. That should have been resisted. Part of what you were gaining by an expensive Harvard education was contacts that would help you later in life. A racially diverse student body will break down in racial clicks that defeat that. When the school went diverse it also lost it’s religious function and the ability to maintain standards of student behavior.

    The government invests lavishly on state universities to bring up the would be Horatio Alger fiction fodder of America.

    Reply
    • Will

      What is your obsession with legacy and thinking that if someone comes from good stock, they’re a good person. Diversity doesn’t mean weakness, how they’re going about it does.

      Reply
      • John C.

        You are correct that diversity doesn’t mean weakness. A great school aimed a certain subset of Koreans would be a great asset to Korea. It would not resemble old Harvard nor should it. The potential advantage of diversity is different types of people building good stuff for themselves. It is not a strength of diversity to send Koreans to Harvard changing the school so it better serves them to the detriment of who it was built for. From what I can see, that is what we have now.

        If the class at Harvard declined because the people it was built for were now too fat, happy and drunk to build on the achievements of their grandfathers, the reputation of Harvard would decline and I am fine with that outcome.

        Reply
        • Will

          As a graduate of said schools, you so aim to be where descendants can only attend, I can happily say that the legacy students were the least capable next to the baseball team. The problem is not the students, but how they teach and how one is taught to think. I’m glad I went to college when I did, because the woke shit it is getting worse, not because of the students, but because of the administrations.

          Reply
  3. Longshankshammer

    Harvard seems to be heading for a 1/2 legacy 1/2 affirmative action 0% merit future. Hopefully the diaspora of merit that modern Harvard inspires does good things or at least better things than zuck ever did.

    Reply
  4. LynnG

    John C, you hit it on the nail head. You should read, “Rendezvous with Destiny, A History of the Vale Class of 1937 and its times”. It supports your thesis. As well as offering an outstanding look at what candidates who gained admission to the ivy league were like almost a century ago.

    Reply
    • John C.

      Thanks for the book recommendation, I made a note of it. I just recently finished H M Pulham, Esquire by John Marquand. It was the story of a Harvard class of 1920 multi generation alum who evaluates his life on the occasion of a 20 year reunion of the class. Mr Marquand was himself part of that class.

      The partial switch to judging applicants by SAT scores was done to justify letting in the new bunch. It would be interesting to know if the student body IQ actually rose as Harvard would have hoped. I have my doubts, but I am sure the level of instruction dropped. It also lessened the tie to Boston, much to that cities detriment.

      Reply
      • stingray65

        It is so interesting how so many progressive policies of the past are being reversed because they fomented unprogressive results. Standardized tests were designed to remove subjectivity and bias from college admissions so that the best and brightest were admitted in preference to the dull and lazy offspring of alumni (Ted Kennedy anyone?), but of course now such tests of ability keep blacks and Hispanics out of high prestige schools and must be dropped. What may be even worse for progressive mindsets is that Charles Murray’s new book cites research that finds that contrary to “conventional liberal wisdom” SAT scores actually over-predict black performance in university (i.e. they do worse in their coursework and progress than their test scores would predict), which is why they must be dropped entirely. The same thing is occurring with orchestra auditions, where progressives pushed for blind auditions because they were convinced that racist/sexist orchestra leaders were discriminating against females and people of color, but now when blind auditions have not led to more colorful orchestras they are pushing to do away with them so that woke orchestra leaders can have complete visual awareness of applicant color while making their choices. And wasn’t it progressives who were all hot and bothered by segregated schools back in the day, but now their progressive grandchildren are calling for segregated classrooms, dorms, and graduation ceremonies to enhance the self-esteem of black affirmative action students. Too bad progressive “learning from their mistakes” hasn’t yet trickled down to immigration and welfare policies.

        Reply
        • John C.

          Ted Kennedy would have never made it into old Harvard, as an Irish Catholic whose family wealth came from bootlegging. In H M Pulham, Esquire, Boston’s large Irish community was thought to be a Cross the city had to bear equating to the Jewish residents of the then serious rival city of New York.

          I don’t have evidence to back it up but I wonder if the SAT test was a scheme. The Jews were the first group trying to push in and magickly appears this fool proof test scienticly designed by guess who to psychologically prove who really belongs there. Notice now that the Asians with their cheating and professional test takers have coopted the test. Do you really believe all those Asians with such a thin grasp of English get perfect 800s on the verbal section. I smell a rat and I think so do the Jews now in control in the ivy league. You now see Asians running to Conservative Inc whining about discrimination. If you add up the various forms of our slanty eyed friends, you will find an absolute majority in many ivy league programs. The Jews having it done to them is kind of funny to me, but meanwhile those schools sink lower and lower. The liberal billionaire recent Presidential candidate Tom Stayer money making involved getting ivy league endowments into hedge funds. This had been the last old school hold on them making it hard to regain control.

          Reply
  5. DR Smith

    So how do we handle all these externalities and the insanely tight grip the 1% had on the world? Maybe the way Hollywood suggested – a “ purge” once a year. However, trouble is it would likely degenerate in real life to latest Purge movie…..a forever purge. In other words, a French style revolution.

    Don’t know anything else that would work.

    Reply
    • hank chinaski

      Perhaps the age of the Robber Barons and Pinkertons ended as peacefully as it possibly could have given that at least a few exhibited a modicum of noblesse oblige and that the country was more or less culturally homogeneous. As CH coined, it’s ‘noblesse malice’ all the way down right now. There are no benevolent powers of mention left.

      Speaking to college application literature today, it’s one big ‘toothpaste commercial’. A really gay/trans one.

      Reply
  6. Panzer

    On a somewhat related note, I remember you saying Jack, that there exists a group of people whose spare time is dedicated to parsing anything at all you’ve said in order to try and cancel you.
    I’m surprised they haven’t picked up on some of the people you follow on Instagram. I follow them too, but I live in a country where my employer has to justify a reason for firing me, and ‘we don’t like the things he says in his private life’ is not a reason 🤙

    Reply
  7. stingray65

    Eventually mediocrity will receive its due. You can let someone with a mediocre SAT into Harvard as a legacy of affirmative action admission, but eventually their mediocrity has a cost, which is why there is a movement to ban Bar exams because mediocre black law school grads are unable to pass. Similarly, mediocre black medical school grads are much more likely to kill or maim their patients than any other racial group. HR departments are always looking to boost diversity in the highest status positions of their firms, but the fact that blacks and Hispanics continue to lag behind in the executive suites would suggest that color of talent that can boost earnings and stock prices is difficult to find even among the affirmative action graduates of the Ivy League. Of course it certainly helps to have students a bit on the dull side when the goal of modern education is indoctrination of Leftist drivel that only complete morons or president suffering from advanced dementia could actually believe, such as Critical Race Theory in a country where the richest self-made woman is black as is the most recent 2 term president and 80% of the most popular sports leagues, and the complete replacement of fossil fuels with solar and wind inside of 15 years to solve a “problem” that is greening the planet.

    Reply
    • hank chinaski

      What is happening now, and what will happen until it isn’t sustainable anymore, is that the mediocrity becomes nothing but ornamental, and the real work is performed by capable but deplorable you-know-whos for nothing extra but the pleasure of being part of the organization.

      Getting Pitt Maneuvered in a race is one thing. This gender mixing thing will really come off the rails in combat.

      Reply
      • stingray65

        “This gender mixing thing will really come off the rails in combat.”

        You mean the combat against the “greatest threat facing the country” – white supremacy? If so, I expect an army full of CRT trained sons, daughters, and non-binaries of lesbian parents (see link) will be more than happy to “obey orders” and round up all the deplorable types who voted for Trump, believes the US has a glorious history to be celebrated and that there are only two genders, supports the Constitution and enforcement of immigration laws, and irrationally desires reasonably priced electricity and gasoline 24/7/365, and send them all off for “re-education” at “work camps” that smell of burning flesh. After all, with foreign policy genius Joe Biden in charge, we have nothing to fear from Russia, China, North Korea, Iran or other Muslim fundamentalists, so once the deplorables are rounded up there will be no need for an armed forces as a renewably fueled utopia will be achieved.

        Reply
        • dejal

          Miss Nevada USA is a trans. If (s)he wins the Miss USA title, (s)he will go on to compete for Miss Universe. I want that Miss Nevada to win Miss Universe.

          Beauty pageants are stupid things. Maybe a trans win will wipe the stupid out of some future CIS woman in the future from entering. And CIS woman is an idiotic term. You starting using their language and the battle is half won.

          Same as the “Female” from New Zealand whose on the New Zealand Olympic weight lifting team. I want “Her” to win gold. Maybe it will destroy some of these clown shows.

          Reply
          • stingray65

            Feminists are always so concerned about female self-image and empowerment issues with body positive movements, “strong” women themes in advertising and movies (see Army ad above), etc. to make sure girls and women feel good about themselves. Now we have transgenders winning beauty contests and female athletic contests and thereby proving that men are better women than women are, which I can’t imagine is going to be good for female self-image.

  8. stingray65

    Jack, the co-ed racing piece was interesting as usual, but also related to your essay above. You mention that your son races against a fairly large number of girls in his kart racing and speculate that future “adult” racing divisions will therefore be populated by increasing numbers of females (or people who identify as female to be more inclusive). I’m not sure we can make that assumption, because girls have been involved in sports in general to a much greater degree over the past 50+ years during the same time period that young women have also made up the majority of college students and graduates, and yet adult age female sports leagues and other athletic endeavors continue to be pretty lightly participated and attended (i.e. I see far more males of all ages in running events and softball leagues than females), but also as feminists like to remind everyone far fewer females in the executive suites and other high paid/status positions than their educational attainment and population percentages suggest should be the case. This lack of female success has led to all sorts of special favors designed to increase their “success” from female quotas on corporate boards, special female (and minority) only recruitment and mentoring programs, and rules designed to protect females (that can also be used as weapons against rivals) such as sexual harassment laws and lower physical requirements for female police, firefighters, and military personnel. So if females (or radical feminists) do show more future interest in participating in adult age car racing you can be sure there will be lots of new rules that will make the sport safer (for women) and less fun (for men) including severe penalties for men hitting women with their cars or body parts, limitations on car speeds, handicap systems that give the female driven cars more power or less weight to better equalize the podium finishes, and special sponsorships and other sources of money to help finance female teams.

    Reply
    • dejal

      You’ve described the “W Series” a women’s only single seater series.
      Wiki
      On 30 January 2020, the series announced the breakdown of FIA Super Licence points would be attributed for the top eight finishers in the upcoming season. The series has been allocated a scoring system of 15-12-10-7-5-3-2-1 by the FIA, which puts it on a par with the NASCAR Cup, Indy Lights, Formula Renault Eurocup, Euroformula Open, Super Formula Lights, Australian Supercars and the WTCR.

      The 15 points for the champion is fewer than is awarded for winning Formula Regional and Asian F3, two series run in same machinery as W Series.[12]

      They are bitching that less points are given for a win in this series in the same car that is run in series that has men and there’s nothing that stops women from competing in the series (but don’t).

      Super License points are important. Giving the same points for a series that excludes 50% of the population isn’t going to get these ladies a gig. Hell, you can win F2 or place really well, and there’s a good chance you’ll never drive in F1 other than a Free Practice session.

      BUT I HAVE SUPER LICENSE POINTS. YOU ARE A MYSOGINIST!!!

      Reply
      • stingray65

        Female empowerment in a race series limited to only women (at least until a male driver decides he is actually a woman) and organized and funded entirely by men concerned about the lack of female participation in F1. Nice that these strong female drivers get a car supplied to them with which they can win big money but don’t have to make any efforts to secure sponsorship, but it feels wrong to discriminate against the slower drivers by giving them fewer points – can’t they all just get a participation cup and share the prize money equally to promote female solidarity?

        Reply
        • dejal

          Some of the women that have made the Indy 500 on merit, think that this is idiocy. The whole point of feeder series is just that, feed resources further up the pyramid. “Who’d you beat?” “Who’d you race?” The W series if it was an end in itself, fine, have at it. But, supposedly it is just a step for advancement. You could win the Indy 500, every race on the schedule and F1 isn’t going to give you a sniff. But, curated competition is different?

          “W Series drivers are selected purely on their ability and the series’ cars are mechanically identical, which means that W Series races and championships will be won by the most talented drivers, rather than those with the wealthiest backers.”

          Reply
  9. dejal

    If you’re a working-class stiff, then most of the externalities of the American economy wind up harming you in some way — but the people who really run the country have the ability to make externalities work for them. Which leads me to the idea of the pain-free potlatch, in which the wealthy would enjoy all the social privilege that comes with holding a potlatch while making someone else foot the bill. Could such a thing really happen?

    It is rare that someone that enters Congress, and was just some relatively poor local politician, leaves the job poor. All their great investing was baked in by the bills they passed. I wouldn’t exactly call externalities “externalities” when they create the externalities. It is for us, but not for them.

    Reply
  10. Ronnie Schreiber

    If you want a vision of the future, reader, imagine a first-class airline passenger reclining into the lap of a coach passenger, forever.

    It appears that the proliferation of social media has done similar things in the sexual marketplace. It appear that about twenty percent of men are screwing eighty percent of women. Formerly, a very attractive woman had a limited pool of high value men pursuing her because of geography. There are only, for example, X number of wealthy men in Atlanta who might pursue a 9 or a 10. Posting in Instagram, though, she’s exposed to the entire world of men, so she gets offers to fly out to Cali or Dubai. Meanwhile, the 6 through 8 ladies, are posting sexy pics and getting constant validation from lonely, horny guys on the internet. With all that attention think they’re worthy of men that are actually higher in sexual market value than they are, so they ignore regular guys or keep them in the friendzone/second string. If they do get in a relationship with a guy who they think isn’t high value, they’ll trade up in a New York second if they have the opportunity.

    Add in the “body positivity” movement wherein obese women are praised for their obesity (if I were to post photos of 5’6″ 195# me in my bicycle clothes nobody is going to tell me how attractive I am) and the chances of a regular working class guy finding a pretty woman who is interested in a long term relationship with him are slim indeed.
    For the first time in history there may be more single women who are sexually active than single men. Some studies show that only 20% of guys are getting laid. Now historically, women have been much more successful at perpetuating their genes than men. Over 90% of women in history have had children, only about 40% of men have, so for guys it’s always been a struggle to succeed at mating, but now regular guys have even less of a chance at finding a mate.

    Reply
    • stingray65

      Ronnie, I apparently hit the wrong button, but the comment directly below is a reply to your comment.

      Reply
  11. stingray65

    I feel very sorry for any young guy looking for good female companionship these days. It seems that almost all the good looking young women are spending most of their time on social media posting selfies of themselves eating meals, shopping, exercising, going out, and other daily activities as “social media models”, and anybody that narcissistic is not going to be a good companion to anyone. Of course most young women are not very good looking unless you like fat women, or women covered in tattoos and piercings with pink or green hair, and sporting wardrobes promoting Leftist expressions of solidarity with feminism, BLM, transgenders, Green New Deals, open borders, and “free” college, which means they are not only unattractive and hate men, but may also be certifiably insane (which is why they vote Democrat). Throw in the women who have had more sexual partners than they can remember with the STDs and psychological damage to match, and/or with multiple children each fathered by a different man, and/or who are no longer certain they were born in the correct body, and/or with $100K+ in student debt for the victims study graduate degree, and the female pickings are might slim these days. And if you happen to get lucky and find someone who seems sane and reasonably attractive who is interested in dating a male, you have to consider whether “she” is actually a biological female or whether the whole thing will be a trap that ends with false charges of rape, or later financial rape by family/divorce courts.

    Reply
    • Will

      “I feel very sorry for any young guy looking for good female companionship these days”

      Then dudes have to contend with this stuff: Though in a way, we only have ourselves to blame.

      Reply
    • CJinSD

      I went to a small pool party yesterday. I was a late add, as I believe most of the guests had been to brunch together before I was invited to the house that had a pool. There were nine women between their early-twenties and thirty-six years old(sometimes forty-two, depending on whether she was telling a story or announcing her age) and I brought the total number of men to two. I’m carrying some extra weight these days, while my buddy that brought me to the party is a skinny surfer, but six of the young women involved are considerably more out of shape than I am. Of the three non-obese women, one is an obvious lifestyle lesbian with a shaved head and acne scars. One is skinny but a horrible person who cuckolds her seventy-plus year old surgeon husband. The last one is pretty hot, but tattooed like some of the fatties and unable to hold her inebriants. I had spent the previous two days on an Apocalypse Now-esque voyage into the past, accepting the fact that one of my ex-girlfriends is struggling with mental health issues, but her good qualities became quite vivid while spending time in the company of a bunch of women a generation younger than she is.

      Reply
  12. Daniel J

    I honestly don’t have an issue with what a private university does. What I find is that this is somewhat the opposite of what the state universities in my area does.

    University/school level scholarships are given to anyone who can get a certain ACT or have specific grades upon entry, given to anyone regardless of race. However, it was noted that most of the private endowments through the university were going to mostly Indian and Asian immigrant students and then to minorities. All state run universities maintain diversity because they have to. Private universities don’t necessarily need to, outside of public appearance.

    Reply
    • gtem

      I think the general trend is that many universities like to pack in the full-tuition paying overseas Asian students, even with the known glaring issues with massive cheating on everything from English proficiency tests, application essays, fabricated SAT scores, etc, etc. But these students are a major cash cow. These are the kids you see rolling around in the high dollar luxury/sports cars.

      Reply
      • Will

        Can confirm. Saw them translate English to Chinese on their computers for tests. They just worked in groups and share the answer

        Reply
    • hank chinaski

      There’s a joke that Harvard is a hedge fund with a college attached, and given the endowment (41B as of 2019), it’s not far off. They get tax breaks and likely substantial public funding for research and such. Between this and their position as gatekeeper to the leadership caste, we should have issue with it.
      The UCs recently dropped the requirement for standardized tests and they are optional for now in a growing number of schools, but probably not because Asians were gaming it.

      Reply
        • Disinterested-Observer

          One could key the tax on $1B+ to the minimum wage. i.e. If the minimum wage does not go up, neither does the exemption.

          Reply
          • CJinSD

            How would making the minimum wage $30 an hour hurt a grift with a 41 billion dollar war chest relative to all of the small American enterprises that Harvard has sought to destroy for decades?

        • Daniel J

          I don’t agree that endowments must be spent or taxed. Charities have endowments. Churches have endowments. Why is it any business of mine, just because I don’t like the way a charity,.church,.or university is ran? Because it’s successful?

          That’s like saying we should tax the high profile, winning and money making colleges in the SEC because I don’t like how they are run.

          Prestige or athletics….does it matter?

          Reply
      • Disinterested-Observer

        Both of the (viable) candidates in 2012 had JDs from Harvard. Prior to that Yalies like HW and W (a twofer as both a Yalie and Harvard business “grad”) had a stranglehold on the highest office. Coincidentally, I am sure, Yalies filled the top ranks of the State Department for decades, which astute readers will note was not rife with communist traitors and whose few members that were not communists totally did not get the US embroiled in an unwinnable liberation war in South East Asia to impress their european betters at cocktail parties.

        Reply
        • BlueovalDave

          more specifically, the state dept. Yalies, as well as Bush and John Kerry, were Skull & Bones Yallies.

          underneath the Skull & Bones insignia is “322”

          “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” Genesis 3 22

          Luciferian cultists

          Reply
  13. FHarvard

    My son scored a 1580/1600 on the SAT: no coaching. With bare minimum effort, he’s got nearly perfect grades (he allows himself an occasional gentlemen’s B in classes he doesnt like) He could fit in anywhere academically other than the physics dept at Cal Tech.

    He’s quite active socially with a lot of female and male friends. Even when he was a freshman, I was impressed at how many kids called out his name as we would walk to the car or the like. Pretty good at his chosen sport, only Div 3 level talent, but one of the best in the HS league at least.

    He will not even waste his time applying to Harvard and the like. Not sure where he will end up for school. He can go for free or nearly free to a handful of schools with his upcoming National Merit Finalist Status. Funny that these schools give the award 100% based on a test score, so opposite. The schools are strivers, looking to increase the talent on campus, and its an easy way to do it. Contrary to some opinions, coaching alone wont get many to the 99%+ percentile on those tests. (cheating may tho)

    I think there are increasingly more of kids like him outside the traditional top schools, as these top schools continue to focus more and more away from merit as the main determinant of admission.

    Hopefully the admissions policies of Harvard ultimately reduces its influence, but likely going to take a long long time.

    Reply
    • CJinSD

      I hope this window of meritocracy remains open. So many Gen X and Millennial white cis-gender Christians escaped Obama’s model of only the government and corporatists offering jobs which were exclusively available to box-checkers through entrepreneurship that the Democrats colluded with China to exaggerate the impact of a bioweapon to destroy small enterprise. What will they do when they figure out that second tier colleges are still educating the smartest whites?

      Reply
    • Will

      Amherst, Williams, Middlebury or Bowdoin on his radar? Johns Hopkins, CIT, UofChicago, there are plenty of good schools outside of Harvard to apply to.

      Reply
      • dejal

        Amherst? Unless he never leaves the campus, he will come back with blue hair, ear plugs and studs coming out of his chin, while wearing black lipstick.

        Reply
  14. John C.

    I would encourage your son to go to the best school he can get into rather than a second/third tier school that would pay him to go there. He will get farther in life being around his equals and betters rather than around students that will have a good two deviations lower IQ. That may not be ivy, but it may be abroad. He just won’t be challenged at a lessor school and he also may resent you for not being willing to invest in him when he has excelled facing every challenge.

    Reply
    • FHarvard

      The best of the schools with full ride for National Merit is Univ of Florida, which has pretty strong standing academically. Texas A&M and Ohio State provide good $$ for out of state high scoring kids as well. If he takes an engineering course of study at any of these, I dont think he is hurting himself career wise.

      I told him that he can I’ll pay him out for half the savings from any scholarships of this type, so he could pull out up to 75K for himself out of the deal. Hopefully that would quell any resentment.

      Reply
    • stingray65

      I’m not sure that Ivies or other 1st tier school actually challenge anyone who gets admitted except perhaps in some fields that have still have some standards such as engineering. The average GPA at Harvard is an A-, and I’ve never heard of anyone getting flunked out of an top tier school in recent times so once you get in they will make sure you get through with a very nice GPA. It is actually the big open admission state schools that tend to have the toughest courses/exams as their model is to let everyone in and then fail the weak students with tough exams during their freshman year to get more reasonably sized classes for the remainder. In terms of what goes on in the classroom there will be relatively little difference between top tier and 2nd tier schools as both groups of students will be taught by Leftist indoctrinators for 98% of any courses they take in the humanities or social sciences, and about 50 to 75% in the rest of the school. The only thing the top tier schools have that many lower tier schools do not is an international network of movers and shakers among the alumni and the legacy admission children of the mover and shaker alumni, although lesser schools can also offer a nice network it will usually be strongest as the regional level which might be good enough if the graduate wants to stay in the area.

      Reply
      • John C.

        It doesn’t solve the problem of getting the young man around his equals in IQ which is where he needs to be. I think fharvard will not tolerate gender studies at any school. At my daughter’s, and earlier my wife’s private girls boarding school, there was a girl that had slightly higher academic stats than my daughter, lower than fharvard’s son. She was the daughter of two professors at the affiliated University and so she attended the boarding school free as a day student. Her goal was Yale. Instead she went to a small private university 50 miles from home that actually paid her to attend, over an above a free ride. Her parents had taught too many classes where half the class was on charity and half paid and thought the ones that paid were chumps. So they foolishly limited their own child due to biases. This problem would have been solved by the old British system of forcing students on scholarship to act as servants on campus. Even during my wife’s time at the boarding school, the scholarship kids were being told to wash the underwear of the mean but paying kids.

        There is big problem these days of ultra high intelligence people being diverted off to things like counting cards at casinos or designing ever better program stock trading or cripto currency mining instead of where they can be most use to society in industry, the sciences, and academia. The country can’t have their best all siting around casinos and call that good.

        Reply
      • yossarian

        @stingray65 yes, going to harvard isn’t that tough as an undergraduate in the liberal arts. both princeton and yale have a reputation of being more demanding. havard’s graduate schools on the other hand have a reputation of being very rigorous.

        Reply
  15. yossarian

    for the record, sats are now only two scores verbal and math. the optional essay and subject tests have been eliminated. the number of schools that require either the sat or act has decreased but most will accept them optionally. academically advanced kids tend to still submit test scores with their applications.

    last year, the psat was not given in large parts of the country due to covid. the national merit awards which are traditionally determined by the psat allowed sat submissions in lieu of sats.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.