Inequality

[whatbogsends]

I believe every person has the ability to reach what they have the ability, desire, and self-discipline to attain. It doesn't matter where they start. What matters is inside each individual. It may be more difficult for a poor man to reach the place a rich man can reach because of the advantage wealth gives the rich man, but nothing is impossible for the man that really works and sacrifices to reach his goals.

Life is not fair. One man is born with great innate intelligence. Another is not. So it goes with each and every person and their personal attributes. Being born wealthy or poor is just another way each person born different. But, nothing can stop the truly determined man. The history of our country is filled with examples of this. One of our greatest presidents was born into abject poverty and raised by a father who didn't believe in education. However, he educated himself. He taught himself everything he became, and he became a truly heroic man.

This is the genius and stamp of the infinite on our form of government. To throw this away in the pursuit of "fairness" is to throw away the greatest gift man has ever been given: liberty. And I'm afraid that so many people take liberty as such a "given" that they do not realize how easy it is to lose it.

With the difference that being born wealthy is an external characteristic one is born with, versus attributes like intelligence which are innate (although how to use one's intelligence can be cultivated).

There will never be a true equality of opportunity of those born into different socioeconomic status. Born into wealth, one is generally provided with a good education, and a good support system to take advantage of that education which is available. Born into poverty, one is generally thrust into a poorly run educational system, and one must often overcome home issues in addition to trying to find a way to reap any benefit of the broken educational institution that is available to them.

Is it impossible to pull oneself out of poverty? Of course not, but let's not pretend the playing field is level. The single most accurate predictor of one's future economic is the socioeconomic status they were born into.

Outcomes should not be (and will not be) "equal". That being said, it is entirely reasonable that steps are taken to provide opportunities to those at the bottom.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This would solve most economic problems in America,



"Prepare thy work without, and make it fit for thyself in the field; and afterwards build thine house." Proverbs 24:27

 

[joeb32]

Realistically we're never going to be at equality of outcomes, nor do I think we should be. What we should strive for is equality of opportunity, true meritocracy. If that ever happens, your post will be valid, but it don't think we're anywhere near right now. Some things truly are impossible even for the most driven man, purely by the bad fortune of his birth.

You're misreading my post. I said that ability, desire, and determination are the factors that say how far a man can go. Everyone has that same opportunity: to go however far their own attributes allow them to go. How you mistake that for the idea that everyone should have the same outcome in life is beyond me. It's even at variance with my opening post in which I quoted what Owen Wister said about eternal inequality, and I made it very clear that I agreed with him.

Einstein said determination has more to do with where you end up in life than your intellect. I believe it. I went to high school with a guy who had a D average, and he worked hard to earn those Ds. However, he had a dream. He ended up owning and operating his own business. He succeeded in his dream of owning a gas station and he had people with greater intelligence than he had working for him. He ended up owning his own business, his own home, a couple of cars, etc.... His lack of intelligence didn't hold him back. He worked very hard to overcome his limitations.

I read something this weekend on a definition of success that more people ought to adopt. In that definition of success wealth, position, power, etc... are of lesser importance than what we do as individuals to help our fellow man. In that definition a man can have far more money and power than he could ever imagine having, but if he is a selfish jerk he is NOT a success. I agree with this definition of success.

 

[joeb32]

The third world is built on this principle, one man lives in a mansion and the other man is going through the mansion garbage bins, is that how you want America to be?
Are you so delusional as to think that you may one day be that man living in the mansion?

It seems to me that you are the one that is delusional. It's strictly delusional for you assume things for which you have no evidence whatsoever.

Most third world countries have a centralized government. It is that which limits the opportunities of their own people. It is that idea of centralized government which the American Revolution rejected.

It is centralized government that the political left desires for they want government to punish those who succeed and prop up those who do not. It is the antithesis of what our forefathers fought and died for. It is the antithesis of why so many people have emigrated here. Those people left countries with centralized governments who decided who would succeed and who would fail. They came here, broke, hungry, and desiring nothing more than the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own.

This idea that I should resent someone who has more money and possessions than I do is ridiculous. I say, good for them if that is their idea of success. It's not for me, but more power to them if they have reached that which they have dreamed about.

I made less than $10,000 last year. I live in poverty. That's OK. Riches and power are not my dream. I bought into that for a short while when I was younger and it made me absolutely miserable. Life is so much more than things. Things are, in my estimation, a very poor substitute for happiness and joy. They are a poor substitute for real success and happiness.

 

[Emmyc]

This is like saying there is a game of baseball and every year they have continued the score from previous years so that now the score is 49,569 to 412.

The rules are the same for everyone and you are drafted to either team by random drawing.

If you happened to be drafted to the team starting with significantly less points you are unlikely to win the season, even if the rules are the same for all players.

 

[joeb32]

I think the bigger problem is that others have millions who didn't necessarily earn it while those who work hard live in poverty. That's an unnatural inequality.

No. It is not. It is a fact that if you could somehow make everyone equal monetarily and then left everyone to their own devices 20% of the people would have 80% of the money in just a very few years. It's always been that way, and there are only two ways to change that: 1. Change human nature. 2. Use the government's gun to enforce "equality" on everybody.

Number one is impossible. Number two is a society in which freedom ceases to exist.

 

[joeb32]

This is like saying there is a game of baseball and every year they have continued the score from previous years so that now the score is 49,569 to 412.

The rules are the same for everyone and you are drafted to either team by random drawing.

If you happened to be drafted to the team starting with significantly less points you are unlikely to win the season, even if the rules are the same for all players.

It seems you have the idea that everyone must hold to the exact same definition of success that you do. I know many people who have different ideas than you hold. I myself have much different ideas of success than that which you seem to hold.

So what if one man starts life with millions of dollars? Who cares? I don't. My success or failure in life has nothing to do with how much money he has.

 

[smaneck]

It is a fact that if you could somehow make everyone equal monetarily and then left everyone to their own devices 20% of the people would have 80% of the money in just a very few years.

And your 'fact' is based on what evidence?

 

[Emmyc]

This idea that I should resent someone who has more money and possessions than I do is ridiculous. I say, good for them if that is their idea of success. It's not for me, but more power to them if they have reached that which they have dreamed about.

I made less than $10,000 last year. I live in poverty. That's OK. Riches and power are not my dream. I bought into that for a short while when I was younger and it made me absolutely miserable. Life is so much more than things. Things are, in my estimation, a very poor substitute for happiness and joy. They are a poor substitute for real success and happiness.

I too am poor and happy. You're right there are more important things then money. I don't want what rich people have. I never eapecially want to own a brand new car (for example), I *would* like to see Disney World someday, but if I never do I won't be upset about it, it doesn't really matter. Same thing with owning a home.

But I *do* was a safety net. Last year I was in a car accident. I was out of work for 3 months. My car was destroyed. I needed medical care and physical therapy.

During that time I needed my government health care so I could get the treatment I needed to *get back to work*.

I also needed my income tax return to get me through that time and to get a new very cheap car to *get to work and back*.

I also appreciate government head start program that watches my daughter for free in a safe and constructive enviroment *allowing me to work* (If I had to pay for child care I would bring home 4 dollars an hour which wouldn't pay my rent. If I picked up a guy with a sign saying "will work for food" and asked him to watch my daughter I don't think my mind would be on my work...at all)

Government programs don't help lazy people get rich with out working. They make it possible for the poor to work, and to live on what they make.

It's not about wanting what the rich have, unless you mean a roof over your head, food to eat, the safety of your children, transportation to work, basic health care, the a safety net so that if you get into a car accident you don't end up under a bridge. And if that IS what you mean what's wrong with wanting that?

 

[joeb32]

And your 'fact' is based on what evidence?

It's called the Pareto principle. You can also find this principle expressed in nature.

 

[Belk]

No. It is not. It is a fact that if you could somehow make everyone equal monetarily and then left everyone to their own devices 20% of the people would have 80% of the money in just a very few years. It's always been that way, and there are only two ways to change that: 1. Change human nature. 2. Use the government's gun to enforce "equality" on everybody.

Number one is impossible. Number two is a society in which freedom ceases to exist.

Labeling your opinion as fact does not lend it more weight.

 

[whatbogsends]

No. It is not. It is a fact that if you could somehow make everyone equal monetarily and then left everyone to their own devices 20% of the people would have 80% of the money in just a very few years. It's always been that way, and there are only two ways to change that: 1. Change human nature. 2. Use the government's gun to enforce "equality" on everybody.

Number one is impossible. Number two is a society in which freedom ceases to exist.

Firstly, currently, the top 20% had 89% of the wealth as of 2010. Their percentage has increased since then.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

As of 2012, the top 10% have 77.2% of the wealth, with over 41.8% of the total wealth being owned by the top 1%.

http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014Slides.pdf

As far back as 1983, the wealth distribution was closer to the 20% having 80% of the wealth as you posit (they had 81.3%).

While wealth would obviously redistribute over time, it certainly wouldn't happen "in a few years", moreover, a large part of the reason of increasing rates of wealth inequality is those with wealth can leverage their wealth and force those with less to make economic decisions against their best interests. Ranging from business owners confiscating the majority of worker production to those with lesser incomes paying a higher rate of in interest when financing large purchases.

Those with large amounts of money already purchase government influence (lobbying) and have legislation enacted which further strengthens their position (in the form of subsidies and tax breaks, as well as laws making it more difficult for newer businesses to enter the market (Tesla, anyone?).

You're delusional if you don't think that having wealth makes acquiring additional wealth much easier, for yourself and for your children.

Yes, there are personal traits which make one more or less likely to succeed, but your starting socioeconomic status is still the biggest predictor of future income. It's not that people born into poverty are destined to remain in poverty - there are and will always be people who are able to escape the cycle - but there is clearly a significant advantage to being born into wealth and a disadvantage to being born into poverty. The opportunities for people born into these situations will always be unequal, but it's obvious that the equitable solution is to help create opportunities for the less privileged among us.

https://hbr.org/2014/02/what-we-know-about-income-mobility-depends-on-how-we-define-it/

Social mobility and inequality: Upper bound | The Economist

Lastly, "equality" is a red herring. No one is pushing for absolute equality. What people are pushing for are programs which lessen the impact of systemic inequality.

 

[Emmyc]

It seems you have the idea that everyone must hold to the exact same definition of success that you do. I know many people who have different ideas than you hold. I myself have much different ideas of success than that which you seem to hold.

So what if one man starts life with millions of dollars? Who cares? I don't. My success or failure in life has nothing to do with how much money he has.

What definition do you think I hold of "success"?
My illustration was only meant to show there are different definitions of " fair" or "equal chance". And everyone playing by the same rules doesn't mean they have the same opportunity

 

[smaneck]

It's called the Pareto principle. You can also find this principle expressed in nature.

That's not evidence.

 

[sandybay]

This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans, I am British looking into the US from the outside so my opinion counts for nothing.

I could list all the problems with the US health system but perhaps I should let others more qualified do it, please take a look at a few of these,
you may have seen them before but perhaps you haven't.
They might just tell you something you didn't already know, these are just a few of hundreds on youtube.

BE AWARE YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE WHAT YOU HEAR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckSyGD6uoR0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur6UoY-H41o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPiMMCD3ec4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKw8-_79nCo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CoTKMb8PS0

This last one every American should watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPHSXUS0_1c

 

[joeb32]

With the difference that being born wealthy is an external characteristic one is born with, versus attributes like intelligence which are innate (although how to use one's intelligence can be cultivated).

There will never be a true equality of opportunity of those born into different socioeconomic status. Born into wealth, one is generally provided with a good education, and a good support system to take advantage of that education which is available. Born into poverty, one is generally thrust into a poorly run educational system, and one must often overcome home issues in addition to trying to find a way to reap any benefit of the broken educational institution that is available to them.

Is it impossible to pull oneself out of poverty? Of course not, but let's not pretend the playing field is level. The single most accurate predictor of one's future economic is the socioeconomic status they were born into.

Outcomes should not be (and will not be) "equal". That being said, it is entirely reasonable that steps are taken to provide opportunities to those at the bottom.

I would disagree with you about wealth, being born into it or not. That is inherited, just like intelligence, temperament, etc... even though it is not a psychological or physical attribute. You can't be born in poverty in a wealthy family.

 

[joeb32]

I too am poor and happy. You're right there are more important things then money. I don't want what rich people have. I never eapecially want to own a brand new car (for example), I *would* like to see Disney World someday, but if I never do I won't be upset about it, it doesn't really matter. Same thing with owning a home.

But I *do* was a safety net. Last year I was in a car accident. I was out of work for 3 months. My car was destroyed. I needed medical care and physical therapy.

During that time I needed my government health care so I could get the treatment I needed to *get back to work*.

I also needed my income tax return to get me through that time and to get a new very cheap car to *get to work and back*.

I also appreciate government head start program that watches my daughter for free in a safe and constructive enviroment *allowing me to work* (If I had to pay for child care I would bring home 4 dollars an hour which wouldn't pay my rent. If I picked up a guy with a sign saying "will work for food" and asked him to watch my daughter I don't think my mind would be on my work...at all)

Government programs don't help lazy people get rich with out working. They make it possible for the poor to work, and to live on what they make.

It's not about wanting what the rich have, unless you mean a roof over your head, food to eat, the safety of your children, transportation to work, basic health care, the a safety net so that if you get into a car accident you don't end up under a bridge. And if that IS what you mean what's wrong with wanting that?

I'm glad to hear you are not materialistic. Good for you. You have rejected something that is quite destructive when it becomes the biggest source of ambition in a person's life. Things are evil in and of themselves. But the willingness to do anything to get them is evil.

What you have basically done is agree with me that success doesn't have to defined as wealth. Where I disagree with you is that other people should pay for things I need or want. That is what government benefits are. They are the redistribution of wealth. It is taking money from someone else (taxes) at the point of the government's gun to give to you. To me there is very little difference between it and stealing for it is something that is not earned. It is something that is taken by force from one person and given to another.

 

[whatbogsends]

I would disagree with you about wealth, being born into it or not. That is inherited, just like intelligence, temperament, etc... even though it is not a psychological or physical attribute. You can't be born in poverty in a wealthy family.

You might want to re-read my post. I specifically said you are born into wealth. What i said the difference was between wealth and things such as intelligence is that intelligence is intrinsic (internal to the person) and wealth is extrinsic (external to the person).

 

[joeb32]

I too am poor and happy. You're right there are more important things then money. I don't want what rich people have. I never eapecially want to own a brand new car (for example), I *would* like to see Disney World someday, but if I never do I won't be upset about it, it doesn't really matter. Same thing with owning a home.

But I *do* was a safety net. Last year I was in a car accident. I was out of work for 3 months. My car was destroyed. I needed medical care and physical therapy.

During that time I needed my government health care so I could get the treatment I needed to *get back to work*.

I also needed my income tax return to get me through that time and to get a new very cheap car to *get to work and back*.

I also appreciate government head start program that watches my daughter for free in a safe and constructive enviroment *allowing me to work* (If I had to pay for child care I would bring home 4 dollars an hour which wouldn't pay my rent. If I picked up a guy with a sign saying "will work for food" and asked him to watch my daughter I don't think my mind would be on my work...at all)

Government programs don't help lazy people get rich with out working. They make it possible for the poor to work, and to live on what they make.

It's not about wanting what the rich have, unless you mean a roof over your head, food to eat, the safety of your children, transportation to work, basic health care, the a safety net so that if you get into a car accident you don't end up under a bridge. And if that IS what you mean what's wrong with wanting that?

I'm glad to hear you are not materialistic. Good for you. You have rejected something that is quite destructive when it becomes the biggest source of ambition in a person's life. Things are not evil in and of themselves. But, the willingness to do anything to get them is evil.

What you have basically done is agree with me that success doesn't have to defined as wealth. Where I disagree with you is that other people should pay for things I need or want. That is what government benefits are. They are the redistribution of wealth. It is taking money from someone else (taxes) at the point of the government's gun to give to you. To me there is very little difference between it and stealing for it is something that is not earned. It is something that is taken by force from one person and given to another. I find that to be something that is very wrong on a moral level.

Don't get me wrong. I believe in charity and charitable organizations. But charity is a personal choice. It is a spiritual weapon against developing greed. It is the expression of love for our fellow man. Having money taken from somebody at the point of the government's gun is not charity. It accomplishes almost the exact spiritual opposite of charity for it tells people that they already "gave", that they already "helped" someone when they paid their taxes, no matter how unwilling they were to pay the taxes, so they look at their neighbor who is hurting and salve their consciences with the thought that they already "gave" and it's now up to the government to take care of the poor. And, the vast majority of people greatly resent being forced to do something, even if's something that is supposedly good.

Long before socialism took hold in this country people took care of each other. The churches did a lot. Neighbors did a lot. Family did a lot. They knew they were dependent on each other if things went wrong and they took care of each other. When a couple got married everyone got together and helped them build their house and barn. Basically the community set the newly weds up in business. It was a lot like what the Amish still practice, and they still practice these things because they have rejected where society has gone, what society has become. They were, and are, far wiser than our society.

 

[joeb32]

You might want to re-read my post. I specifically said you are born into wealth. What i said the difference was between wealth and things such as intelligence is that intelligence is intrinsic (internal to the person) and wealth is extrinsic (external to the person).

If you're born into wealth it is a part of you, just like poverty is. It's been proven over and over again that being born wealthy gives a person certain psychological characteristics and ways of thinking. Ways of thinking are intrinsic, not extrinsic, characteristics. In effect it's no different than being born with choleric temperament rather than a sanguine one. Both affect thought patterns.