4 ms·

It is a fair point and I know plenty of people like that as well. However, to give another perspective on it. When I think of changing an unequal situation, I

It is a fair point and I know plenty of people like that as well. However, to give another perspective on it. When I think of changing an unequal situation, I look at the situations you described like this: "Did something happen early on in that person's life that just kind of made them give up?" I've known people like that, and although it is _also_ true that they _could_ lift themselves out of that situation, when you take it in aggregate over a large population, it becomes a problem (at least to me it does). Why is it a problem? Well, to me it is for two main reasons. First, it gives an indication that there may be a systemic problem that could be corrected (overzealous police, poor education, a political issue, etc.). Frankly, we're far along enough as a species that there's no reason to tolerate that. Second, it means a meaningful portion of the population isn't contributing to humanity/earth/however you want to think of it in a way they otherwise could, which holds all of us back. One of the things that makes it complex is that the answer, I think, changes a lot depending on the population.

eric_b 9y ago
I totally agree with you. I've thought about this as well. Most of the folks I know in bad situations had some early stumbles and they sort of just gave up, as you say. The thing is - and where I struggle - is that the early stumbles weren't insurmountable. It's like they had no fire, no tenacity, no will power.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  Fire, tenacity, and willpower for... what, exactly? Towards what end? Why should everyone have to play ubermensch just to survive?
  - eric_b 9y ago
    Because that's how nature works? Because it's naive to think we've evolved so far that we are no longer subject to natural forces and evolutionary history?
    - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
      So farmers have spent thousands of years of civilization valiantly striving to out-ubermensch each-other, and the rest of us just never heard about it? Shepherds? Priests? Scientists? Artists and writers? Shit, how have I missed the evolutionary war of all against all going on all around me? There are so many gene-rivals I could have stabbed in back-alleys! Or does evolution maybe allow for successful strategies towards survival and reproduction that don't neatly map to metaphors about war?
      - eric_b 9y ago
        Oh please, you're propping up a strawman. You don't need to be an "ubermensch" to survive, and that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying you can't expect to be lazy and make bad choices and also expect to have as much as someone who works hard and makes smart choices. That was my point regarding evolutionary history and nature. Farmers that worked hard and planned ahead did better than those who did nothing. Those that bought crop insurance or fastidiously watched the weather were in a better position to succeed than those who didn't. Similar scenarios abound for your other examples. No matter how much you wish otherwise, nature (and our society) is set up for certain kind of animals/people to succeed - and if you wilfully choose to ignore the system that's fine, but don't be mad when it doesn't work out great for you.
        eli_gottlieb 9y ago
        I don't wish. I put my efforts into overthrowing your so-called "natural" order. Nature, after all, is merely everything compatible with the laws of physics. If we create a universal basic income, or pass living-wage laws, those are natural!
        theandrewbailey 9y ago
        While UBI and living wage laws are compatible with physics, they are not part of nature. UBI and living wage laws are human rules, and nature will do whatever it wants. Humans have nature, too, and no amount of laws or rules will stop human nature. Until human beings become something else, always bet on it. Giving them more resources (e.g. money) tends to make things worse for them.
humanrebar 9y ago
> Did something happen early on in that person's life that just kind of made them give up? That is a retrospective way to address fairness. Another is, "Given where they are, can they start doing better and end up in a better place?" A systemic problem that can (or used to) shove people down economically could be different than a systemic problem that doesn't allow a (reasonable) way to advance once they're at the bottom. Point being, maybe people gave up. Maybe it's their fault. Maybe there was nothing they could do about it. But it's imperative that they have credible ways to undo that decision going forward. Relevant issues (different people will add and/or subtract from the list): 1. permanent felony records and difficulty in getting records expunged after a history of good citizenship 2. hard cut-offs in government benefit programs 2a. getting a raise should not be a personal net loss 2b. getting married should not be a personal net loss 2c. getting more hours should not be a personal net loss, for you or your employer (the ACA really messed up here) 2d. moving to a better situation should not put your benefits at risk 3. Age discrimination needs to be taken more seriously 3a. 50-year-old college grads should have the same shots as anyone else. Otherwise, retraining from failed industries will be prohibitively difficult. 3b. New grads can't afford to wait 5-10 years for their first shot... this causes delayed marriages, delayed savings for retirement, an aging workforce, etc. 4. Home addresses are tied to wealth. Public schools are tied to home addresses. So public educational opportunity for kids is tied to how much wealth their parents have. Something has to be done about this.
- tankenmate 9y ago
  Indeed, in the UK a single working parent with one child on the minimum income working between 30 to 40 hours a week has an effective marginal tax rate of 91% (every extra pound earned means 91 pence is transferred to the government via income tax, national insurance, and reduced benefits). No wonder most single parents in the UK don't want to work. And the well off complain about a, before deductions, rate of 40%.

eric_b 9y ago

I totally agree with you. I've thought about this as well. Most of the folks I know in bad situations had some early stumbles and they sort of just gave up, as you say. The thing is - and where I struggle - is that the early stumbles weren't insurmountable. It's like they had no fire, no tenacity, no will power.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago
Fire, tenacity, and willpower for... what, exactly? Towards what end? Why should everyone have to play ubermensch just to survive?
- eric_b 9y ago
  Because that's how nature works? Because it's naive to think we've evolved so far that we are no longer subject to natural forces and evolutionary history?
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    So farmers have spent thousands of years of civilization valiantly striving to out-ubermensch each-other, and the rest of us just never heard about it? Shepherds? Priests? Scientists? Artists and writers? Shit, how have I missed the evolutionary war of all against all going on all around me? There are so many gene-rivals I could have stabbed in back-alleys! Or does evolution maybe allow for successful strategies towards survival and reproduction that don't neatly map to metaphors about war?
    - eric_b 9y ago
      Oh please, you're propping up a strawman. You don't need to be an "ubermensch" to survive, and that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying you can't expect to be lazy and make bad choices and also expect to have as much as someone who works hard and makes smart choices. That was my point regarding evolutionary history and nature. Farmers that worked hard and planned ahead did better than those who did nothing. Those that bought crop insurance or fastidiously watched the weather were in a better position to succeed than those who didn't. Similar scenarios abound for your other examples. No matter how much you wish otherwise, nature (and our society) is set up for certain kind of animals/people to succeed - and if you wilfully choose to ignore the system that's fine, but don't be mad when it doesn't work out great for you.
      - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
        I don't wish. I put my efforts into overthrowing your so-called "natural" order. Nature, after all, is merely everything compatible with the laws of physics. If we create a universal basic income, or pass living-wage laws, those are natural!
        theandrewbailey 9y ago
        While UBI and living wage laws are compatible with physics, they are not part of nature. UBI and living wage laws are human rules, and nature will do whatever it wants. Humans have nature, too, and no amount of laws or rules will stop human nature. Until human beings become something else, always bet on it. Giving them more resources (e.g. money) tends to make things worse for them.

humanrebar 9y ago

> Did something happen early on in that person's life that just kind of made them give up? That is a retrospective way to address fairness. Another is, "Given where they are, can they start doing better and end up in a better place?" A systemic problem that can (or used to) shove people down economically could be different than a systemic problem that doesn't allow a (reasonable) way to advance once they're at the bottom. Point being, maybe people gave up. Maybe it's their fault. Maybe there was nothing they could do about it. But it's imperative that they have credible ways to undo that decision going forward. Relevant issues (different people will add and/or subtract from the list): 1. permanent felony records and difficulty in getting records expunged after a history of good citizenship 2. hard cut-offs in government benefit programs 2a. getting a raise should not be a personal net loss 2b. getting married should not be a personal net loss 2c. getting more hours should not be a personal net loss, for you or your employer (the ACA really messed up here) 2d. moving to a better situation should not put your benefits at risk 3. Age discrimination needs to be taken more seriously 3a. 50-year-old college grads should have the same shots as anyone else. Otherwise, retraining from failed industries will be prohibitively difficult. 3b. New grads can't afford to wait 5-10 years for their first shot... this causes delayed marriages, delayed savings for retirement, an aging workforce, etc. 4. Home addresses are tied to wealth. Public schools are tied to home addresses. So public educational opportunity for kids is tied to how much wealth their parents have. Something has to be done about this.

tankenmate 9y ago
Indeed, in the UK a single working parent with one child on the minimum income working between 30 to 40 hours a week has an effective marginal tax rate of 91% (every extra pound earned means 91 pence is transferred to the government via income tax, national insurance, and reduced benefits). No wonder most single parents in the UK don't want to work. And the well off complain about a, before deductions, rate of 40%.