5 ms·

I like the term social mobility. A person's station in life should not be tied to their parents' income level.

wtbob 11y ago
> A person's station in life should not be tied to their parents' income level. Why not? One's genes are rather intimately tied to one's parents' genes, and those genes completely determine one's physical self. One's upbringing is the direct result of one's parents' choices (and one's own reaction to them, which is itself a product of genes and upbringing). It seems patently obvious that one's parents' lot in life (itself a product of their own genes and upbringing) must determine one's own lot in life to a very great degree. To think otherwise would be to assume that we are more than the product of our genes and our upbringing, which seems an unsupportable supposition.
- MagnumOpus 11y ago
  If this is true, then the children of billionaires would rise to the top even if they went to the same state schools and had the same resources/networks as everyone else. (Obviously the billionaires don't agree with you since they send their kids to exclusive private schools that cost more than a normal person earns in a year.) If this were true (and I am not arguing that it isn't), a very high inheritance tax could be levied - the kids of billionaires don't need it because they will rise to the top anyway, and you can cut income taxes and corporate taxes to incentivise startup creation instead.
  - wtbob 11y ago
    > If this is true, then the children of billionaires would rise to the top even if they went to the same state schools and had the same resources/networks as everyone else. No, because those private schools are part of the parents' choices about upbringing. Moreover, it's impossible for state schools to be good because it's politically impossible for state schools to teach unpopular truths.
- beejiu 11y ago
  The entire point of capitalism is to exploit individual's self interests for the betterment of society. > those genes completely determine one's physical self They also have an impact outside of one's physical self.
- sailfast 11y ago
  Perhaps a more reasonable reading of this is required. "It should not be impossible to change your station in life because of your parent's income level" leads to different conclusions. Of course the wealthy will have an advantage, but that does not mean you completely restrict those with ambition from achievement - it would be bad for society as a whole nevermind productivity gains.
harryh 11y ago
Everyone says this until they become parents. Then they work as hard as they can to give their own kids every advantage they can.
- kelukelugames 11y ago
  That's true. We are not having kids, but if we were then I'd pay for every advantage for them. How can we make sure that working class children have equal access to the same opportunities and resources? Would I vote against legislation supporting them? I hope not.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  Sure we do, but I also insist on paying healthcare and higher education for my neighbors (who I have never met) kids too.
baddox 11y ago
I don't see why low social mobility would necessarily be a consequence of high income inequality.
- kelukelugames 11y ago
  It's not. At least not directly. PG touches on this at the bottom of his essay. High income equality indirectly erodes social mobility because the ruling class rigs the rules to benefit their children. For example, in the 60s Ivies added ridiculous criteria such as "manliness" and height to discriminate against Jewish applicants. Today, schools reduce the weight of grades and tests to discriminate against Asian applicants.

wtbob 11y ago

> A person's station in life should not be tied to their parents' income level. Why not? One's genes are rather intimately tied to one's parents' genes, and those genes completely determine one's physical self. One's upbringing is the direct result of one's parents' choices (and one's own reaction to them, which is itself a product of genes and upbringing). It seems patently obvious that one's parents' lot in life (itself a product of their own genes and upbringing) must determine one's own lot in life to a very great degree. To think otherwise would be to assume that we are more than the product of our genes and our upbringing, which seems an unsupportable supposition.

MagnumOpus 11y ago
If this is true, then the children of billionaires would rise to the top even if they went to the same state schools and had the same resources/networks as everyone else. (Obviously the billionaires don't agree with you since they send their kids to exclusive private schools that cost more than a normal person earns in a year.) If this were true (and I am not arguing that it isn't), a very high inheritance tax could be levied - the kids of billionaires don't need it because they will rise to the top anyway, and you can cut income taxes and corporate taxes to incentivise startup creation instead.
- wtbob 11y ago
  > If this is true, then the children of billionaires would rise to the top even if they went to the same state schools and had the same resources/networks as everyone else. No, because those private schools are part of the parents' choices about upbringing. Moreover, it's impossible for state schools to be good because it's politically impossible for state schools to teach unpopular truths.
beejiu 11y ago
The entire point of capitalism is to exploit individual's self interests for the betterment of society. > those genes completely determine one's physical self They also have an impact outside of one's physical self.
sailfast 11y ago
Perhaps a more reasonable reading of this is required. "It should not be impossible to change your station in life because of your parent's income level" leads to different conclusions. Of course the wealthy will have an advantage, but that does not mean you completely restrict those with ambition from achievement - it would be bad for society as a whole nevermind productivity gains.

harryh 11y ago

Everyone says this until they become parents. Then they work as hard as they can to give their own kids every advantage they can.

kelukelugames 11y ago
That's true. We are not having kids, but if we were then I'd pay for every advantage for them. How can we make sure that working class children have equal access to the same opportunities and resources? Would I vote against legislation supporting them? I hope not.
alkonaut 11y ago
Sure we do, but I also insist on paying healthcare and higher education for my neighbors (who I have never met) kids too.

baddox 11y ago

I don't see why low social mobility would necessarily be a consequence of high income inequality.

kelukelugames 11y ago
It's not. At least not directly. PG touches on this at the bottom of his essay. High income equality indirectly erodes social mobility because the ruling class rigs the rules to benefit their children. For example, in the 60s Ivies added ridiculous criteria such as "manliness" and height to discriminate against Jewish applicants. Today, schools reduce the weight of grades and tests to discriminate against Asian applicants.