I didn't state that it was reasonable but a lot of parents do care. Something on the order of 2% of entering US college freshmen receive at least a partial athletic scholarship at NCAA D1/D2 schools. This can be a major cost savings, plus it allows them to bypass the normal application process. We can argue about whether colleges should give athletic scholarships at all but that's how the system works.
I agree that sports should be accessible to kids of all income levels. And that's true to an extent for certain sports. But the cheaper options of playing on public school or community center teams will only take you so far. The better coaches and higher levels of competition necessary to develop real mastery are often only available in expensive private clubs and academies.
Sorry I guess what I'm getting at is more specifically: why should anyone care if people are priced out of the absolute upper echelons of sports?
I actually think it's probably better that tier of athletics is predominantly (and obviously) a bunch of trust fund babies. It's immensely high risk and low utility (both internally and externally to the athlete themselves) for anyone else to be pursuing those ambitions.
Because, not to be idealistic, but America is supposed to be the land of opportunity. There are no kings, or lords. Every person is equal in the eyes of the law, and the free market is the decider. If we're abdicating that position, and just wanna accept that the rich get everything and everyone else fights for their scraps, well, I mean, everyone's gotta have an ethos, I guess.
Because when people sign up kids for sports, the thing they want them to learn the most is competitiveness and hard training. Everything else is basically perceived as being lazy. As a culture, we tend to turn evrything into grand moralization and duty.
So, consequently, sports club that is not trying to win is seen as lazy and bunch of loosers. And quite openly.
The manufacturing lines would be designed, and they'd be designed in an attempt to affect the "design" of the ultimate resulting supply chain they're a part of. But the relationship between the design of some lines and the behavior of the larger supply chain is non-linear, hard to predict, and ultimately undesigned, and therefore complex.
The design of the manufacturing lines and the resulting supply chain are not independent of each other -- you can trace features from one to the other -- but you cannot take apart the supply chain and analyze the designs of its constituent manufacturing lines and actually predict the behavior of the larger system.
AFAIK there's not a great definition of a complex system, just a set of traits that tend to indicate you're looking at one. Non-linearity, feedbacks, lack of predictability, resistance to analysis (the "you can't take it apart to reason about the whole" characteristic mentioned above"). All of these traits are also kind of the same things... they tend to come bundled with one another.
As an example, if you call your bank to report a lost credit card, and that you'd like it shipped to a different address than the one you registered with them, they'll ask you for the last 4 digits of your SSN.
So yeah, someone who knows (name, SSN) or especially (name, address, phone, SSN) can do a lot of harm.
This is an excellent argument because it can be used to justify approximately any behavior.
Murder is bad? Well that's a bit hypocritical considering that the Golden State Killer killed 10 more people than I did!
I also think this pattern of critique is dismissible on its face once stated explicitly: "Oh you are spending your time trying to change things that are within the scope of your own political power, while ignoring similar things that are outside of the scope of your political power? Hypocritical!"
99% of every person's beliefs are driven by what "the right people told them," of course.
That's not really the point nor the problem, because some people choose to listen to very stupid or malicious people and others are (by chance or by skill) more susceptible to being steered by more credible people.
Half the country is in thrall with a uniquely malicious and moronic force, and the other half is vaguely in alignment with the vague directional gestures of expert consensus (even though it's sometimes wrong!). These are not at all the same, even if they both are technically "believing what people told them to."
>half is vaguely in alignment with the vague directional gestures of expert consensus
Their beliefs are driven by a different set of oligarchs and imperial mandarins who have their own set of self serving reality distortion fields.
The companies which donate to both sides and the countries which collect enough komptomat are often able to set up bipartisan reality distortion fields.
Sports should be accessible to kids of all income levels for the sake of playing sports while they’re kids.
reply