4 ms·

> If we mean what we say about equal opportunity, then we're essentially talking about cutting the probabilistic link between one's background and one's distrib

by mjolk 10y ago

> If we mean what we say about equal opportunity, then we're essentially talking about cutting the probabilistic link between one's background and one's distribution over outcomes. The intrinsic problem with this approach is that it "drags others down", reducing the purpose of working harder or unfairly affects those more naturally capable. > * Admitting students to university based on merely adequate grades and their citizenship in the community Assuming you mean "citizenship in the community" to be "I live in state X, that means I have a better chance of access to X State University", over a generation, this would just mean that for higher achieving state X, students from state Y would be locked out of better opportunities based on geographic residency. A real life example would be higher admittance for Californians to California State schools, which reduces the opportunities for a kid from Missouri or Alabama (because of realistic capacity constraints). The kid that went to University of Missouri is now at a significant disadvantage (based on education) and is not able to compete against her peers for jobs in regions with better long-term opportunities, even if she had a lot of potential. University of Missouri then has to accommodate the lackluster abilities of its enrolling body (as it ostensibly does with a 77% acceptance rate), which leads to dropping STEM requirements, which means an even less capable constituency. > rather than based on a "meritocratic" competition that actually just conditions outcomes on starting-points. Related to the last point, this would seek to normalize the achievement by "boosting up" those that haven't demonstrated aptitude, while limiting the opportunity of those that would benefit from a more rigorous program. > * Supporting trade unions and other institutions that regularize wages/salaries/incomes. For non-specialized labor, maybe. If the idea is that the base salary would need to increase, that would just increase the costs of goods "across the board", which doesn't do much except broaden the divide between the full-time employed and the unemployed. Would you be willing to give up a percentage of your salary to someone else in your department that earns less, even if he/she doesn't work as hard or isn't as skilled? If yes, why aren't you doing that now? > * Taxing inheritance heavily. Why are others more entitled to the results of my labor after I'm dead versus when I'm alive? It's not my job to posthumously give advantage to the kids of strangers against my own in a competitive world. Also, if you try to implement this, you'll end up getting the government involved in interpersonal gifting (as the logical workaround would be to give the maximum tax deductible gift per year or sell assets to family at well below their value, if not just creating new avenues to tax avoidance). > * Enforcing anti-trust law. Agreed. > We're looking to defy that natural process, cut a natural link, and thus regularize certain statistical structures. This suggestion makes my brain feel fuzzy. If the thought is that it's a natural process for the above-average to create advantages for themselves and their own, isn't this asking for more laws to compel them to act against their own interests?

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>The intrinsic problem with this approach is that it "drags others down", reducing the purpose of working harder or unfairly affects those more naturally capable. I don't think that there's anything natural about how much money your parents have. If we go back into history, the only "naturally capable" advantage some people had was a natural capacity to stick a sword through peasants and take their grain. "Natural" advantages came from violence, not from intrinsic individual greatness. Actual individual greatness, like that of Einstein (for instance), is often just thrown into the general lot of human advancement. >Assuming you mean "citizenship in the community" to be "I live in state X, that means I have a better chance of access to X State University", over a generation, this would just mean that for higher achieving state X, students from state Y would be locked out of better opportunities based on geographic residency. Yes, that is a problem. However, the capacity limits you mention don't disappear when we just say, "Open University of California to the whole planet". The only real solution is to build up more top-quality universities in Missouri and Alabama. Now, I know that trying to multiply one fish into thousands of fish and feed the masses can sound miraculous, but the amazing thing about education and technology is that they enhance productivity. Once you've committed to making Missouri and Alabama more productive, the process helps itself along, so it's actually nowhere near miraculous. >Would you be willing to give up a percentage of your salary to someone else in your department that earns less, even if he/she doesn't work as hard or isn't as skilled? If yes, why aren't you doing that now? Actually, the last place I worked, everyone earned the same salary. We functioned pretty well. >Why are others more entitled to the results of my labor after I'm dead versus when I'm alive? Because you can't enjoy things when you're dead, and we've seen in history that inheritance leads to aristocracy, social instability, and mass destruction. >This suggestion makes my brain feel fuzzy. If the thought is that it's a natural process for the above-average to create advantages for themselves and their own, isn't this asking for more laws to compel them to act against their own interests? Is it in your interest to defect in a one-shot prisoner's dilemma? Was it in the interest of Marie Antoinette to say, "Let them eat cake"? Your long-term rational interest can differ from short-term selfishness.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >Because you can't enjoy things when you're dead, and we've seen in history that inheritance leads to aristocracy, social instability, and mass destruction. No, passing resources from generation to generation is not what leads to "mass destruction", etc. Familial/generational resources have been the sustenance of almost all free humans since time immemorial. They would live on tribal [read: familial] lands for their entire existence, cooperatively sharing the wealth to ensure that the needs of family members were supplied. We're still dependent on generational wealth for the first couple decades of our lives at a minimum, and there's no reason to cut it off there except a) jealousy that some people are able to do so; and b) a desire to lessen the interdependent bonds between sympathetic family members and strengthen the dependency on the cold, hard creditors, standing at the ready to collect interest and increase the cost of all durable goods by 1.5x-3x. The fact that some things, like thrones and other official positions, may not be good fits for straight inheritance models doesn't mean that all inheritance is evil or that parents shouldn't be allowed to provide a resource pool that will persist after their deaths. I hope that I can leave an estate that provides for the housing and basic needs of my children and grandchildren and I fully intend on passing it down to them. This has nothing to do with "aristocracy, social instability, and mass destruction", and the claim that it does is plain class hostility.

by mjolk 10y ago

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>The intrinsic problem with this approach is that it "drags others down", reducing the purpose of working harder or unfairly affects those more naturally capable. I don't think that there's anything natural about how much money your parents have. If we go back into history, the only "naturally capable" advantage some people had was a natural capacity to stick a sword through peasants and take their grain. "Natural" advantages came from violence, not from intrinsic individual greatness. Actual individual greatness, like that of Einstein (for instance), is often just thrown into the general lot of human advancement. >Assuming you mean "citizenship in the community" to be "I live in state X, that means I have a better chance of access to X State University", over a generation, this would just mean that for higher achieving state X, students from state Y would be locked out of better opportunities based on geographic residency. Yes, that is a problem. However, the capacity limits you mention don't disappear when we just say, "Open University of California to the whole planet". The only real solution is to build up more top-quality universities in Missouri and Alabama. Now, I know that trying to multiply one fish into thousands of fish and feed the masses can sound miraculous, but the amazing thing about education and technology is that they enhance productivity. Once you've committed to making Missouri and Alabama more productive, the process helps itself along, so it's actually nowhere near miraculous. >Would you be willing to give up a percentage of your salary to someone else in your department that earns less, even if he/she doesn't work as hard or isn't as skilled? If yes, why aren't you doing that now? Actually, the last place I worked, everyone earned the same salary. We functioned pretty well. >Why are others more entitled to the results of my labor after I'm dead versus when I'm alive? Because you can't enjoy things when you're dead, and we've seen in history that inheritance leads to aristocracy, social instability, and mass destruction. >This suggestion makes my brain feel fuzzy. If the thought is that it's a natural process for the above-average to create advantages for themselves and their own, isn't this asking for more laws to compel them to act against their own interests? Is it in your interest to defect in a one-shot prisoner's dilemma? Was it in the interest of Marie Antoinette to say, "Let them eat cake"? Your long-term rational interest can differ from short-term selfishness.

cookiecaper 10y ago
>Because you can't enjoy things when you're dead, and we've seen in history that inheritance leads to aristocracy, social instability, and mass destruction. No, passing resources from generation to generation is not what leads to "mass destruction", etc. Familial/generational resources have been the sustenance of almost all free humans since time immemorial. They would live on tribal [read: familial] lands for their entire existence, cooperatively sharing the wealth to ensure that the needs of family members were supplied. We're still dependent on generational wealth for the first couple decades of our lives at a minimum, and there's no reason to cut it off there except a) jealousy that some people are able to do so; and b) a desire to lessen the interdependent bonds between sympathetic family members and strengthen the dependency on the cold, hard creditors, standing at the ready to collect interest and increase the cost of all durable goods by 1.5x-3x. The fact that some things, like thrones and other official positions, may not be good fits for straight inheritance models doesn't mean that all inheritance is evil or that parents shouldn't be allowed to provide a resource pool that will persist after their deaths. I hope that I can leave an estate that provides for the housing and basic needs of my children and grandchildren and I fully intend on passing it down to them. This has nothing to do with "aristocracy, social instability, and mass destruction", and the claim that it does is plain class hostility.