Intersectional inequality is like compound interest these days, where you start often predicts where you end up. In grants, this means a lot of the public money is overseen by powerful private players who are in a competitive position when applying for grants because they are already well-placed. In administrative infrastructure (and the researcher Nisar's work looks at this: https://mazfarnisar.wordpress.com/), it means the public place more and more faith in individuals because the infrastructure has become more of a burden to be endured than a service provider to be appreciated. This is despite the fact that it is simply not possible for an individual to deliver at scale the same services a well-resourced and empowered infrastructure can. Unfortunately, when infrastructure fails the majority, the majority begins to divest -- something those in positions of influence have usually already done for quite some time (e.g., private healthcare providers, private schools, private pension schemes, etc.) In place of infrastructure, individuals embrace celebrity bureaucrats and politicians who offer catharsis and validation in place of actual improvements.

There are similar issues in Belgium and the EU sphere. I'm surprised at how blind the upper class, here personified by Yves, is to their complicity in a system that conflates money and merit. For example, teachers, nurses, childcare workers, etc. are essential workers, but the current socioeconomic structure does not reflect this. Yet rather than rewire the system to diminish the increasing inequality (and thus the lifestyle/perceived value of those more economically well-off), the answer is always ailleurs and the solution is to change a light bulb or two, disregarding the underlying structure causing the issues.