Guide for Non-US Citizens: Launching Your Business in America

Dude, like, listen up. According to my understanding, equality of cultural capital means that migrant farm workers should get the same respect for their culture as the majority peeps do.

 It's all about fairness, ya know? This statement lowkey suggests that there won't be any diff between how the state treats the majority and the minority. Like, they'll both get the same recognition and protection, you know? Whatevs form equality takes in philosophical arguments and socio-economic analysis, equality of cultural capital takes a diff form when rights to claim relate to the recognition of education, qualifications, talents, language skills, knowledge about customs and life styles of migrants. 

This form of equality poses, like, a total mind-blowing challenge to the sociology of migration literature, which hasn't even been spotted in the social and political talk. This research is like totally interested in identifying this challenge and proposing a new way to like deal with it, you know? Yo, the real tea about migration is not just about whether it's lit or trash for the economy and society, but also about if migrants are treated as equals and if their cultural clout is respected and protected, ya feel me? So, like, my idea of equality is totally backed up by Michael Walzer's argument for making separate spaces to make sure things are fair, where stuff with different meanings is given out based on specific rules made just for those things. OMG, like my idea of equality is all about giving props and protecting cultural clout, but Bourdieu is all about how that can lead to major social gaps and stuff. He's like, "Yo, the way capital gets spread out and stuff can totally create inequality between different social classes, and that inequality can get passed down from one generation to the next. It's all because of this capital thing that determines your class status in the first place." - Bourdieu, 1986

The current equality theorists haven't come through with the needed answer to this question so that cultural capital rights can be properly handled in fair schemes.

 

Lit on general schemes of distributive justice has like totally slept on the various conflicts that can go down between the majority and migrants, ya know? Like, we're talking about devaluing or straight up ignoring their cultural capital, or getting exploited by bosses and landlords and stuff. Furthermore, like, there's literally no lit that's been found that surveyed peeps from the minority and found that they get the same level of protection and recognition of their cultural capital from the state as the majority.The vibe that's already been flexed by the peeps who are all about that general scheme of distributive justice is that the distribution of rewards and burdens gotta be fair for everyone in society to achieve social justice, ya know? For social justice to be achieved by all humans, it's like super important to think about the vibes not just between peeps of cultural groups who hold diff cultural norms and sets of cultural capital but also between members of the majority and the minority groups. periodt. So like, one of the biggest questions in the lit on distributive justice is whether minority peeps' cultural capital gets the same recognition and protection as the majority peeps' cultural capital, ya know? This is like, hella important to the ongoing equality debate when it comes to rights and cultural capital, ya know? General principles of distributive justice may help to spill the tea on what's needed for protection and recognition to be flexed in the equality principle.Like, no matter how Bourdieu sees it, my idea of substantive equality is all about making sure there's no cap or diff in how we recognize and protect people's cultural vibes for everyone in the population (even indigenous and immigrant descendants). Yo, here's the tea: Is there, like, a legit diff between how the state recognizes and protects the majority versus the minority? Spill the deets! This inquiry got me thinking about how to come up with a lit conception of equality that's on fleek when it comes to dealing with rights from cultural capital, ya know?

I like totally think that, like, cultural capital is super important in today's society, ya know?

 

And like, there's this big gap in how it's distributed, so it's like, no surprise that cultural capital should have its own separate sphere from education, you feel me? In like, that situation, peeps tryna reconstruct the social vibe of good in the cultural capital scene. Such attempts lowkey flex the need for an explicit distributive policy for cultural capital, and the distributive principle that should lowkey guide such a policy. This means the whole vibe of people's lives revolves around three key questions: (1) What are the vibes that rep different aspects in people's lives? (2) What's the tea on the lit good in a distributive vibe? (3) What's the tea on the principle of justice to flex the distribution of that good? Ppl's lives are like divided into mad diff spheres like education, cultural cap, office, money, power, career, health, and all that jazz. In my opinion, equality is all about cultural clout, ya know? It's like this thing that migrant farm workers have in their lives, and how they deal with equality is like this cool way of sharing cultural clout. I also lowkey argue that distributive justice is the kind of principle that ensures fair AF allocation and distribution of such good. What really matters to the principle internal to this distributive sphere is that accommodation should be allocated based on the vibes of recognition need, ya know? The idea of equality that I wanna work on decides how much people really deserve to be accommodated, ya know? The size or scope of accommodation depends on how much cultural capital rules over everything else, ya know? It's also depends on how much other areas of people's lives flex on the cultural capital scene.