3 ms·
Sure, a growing dichotomy between rich and poor could be a sign of a meritocracy or it could be a sign of people who's parents have money have a greater chance
by wonderwonder 10y ago
Sure, a growing dichotomy between rich and poor could be a sign of a meritocracy or it could be a sign of people who's parents have money have a greater chance of success.
Either way in a country as rich as the United States there should never be hunger, fear of homelessness or other poverty generated afflictions we suffer here.
In addition people are born with different cognitive skills, should those born with average intelligence automatically be doomed to lead lives of poverty compared to others?
I'm not advocating asset seizures but we as a nation can do better.
- pc86 10y agoThere doesn't need to be a dichotomy, I'd love to see wealth distributed on a bell curve but I don't think that's realistic (and I don't want the government enacting policies try to enforce some arbitrary distribution of wealth). Wealth is tied up in a lot of advantages - better schools, more opportunity for leisure, etc - that themselves tend to lead to more wealth. > should those born with average intelligence automatically be doomed to lead lives of poverty compared to others? Nobody born with average intelligence is doomed to a life of poverty so I'm not sure what the point of that straw man is. I think it's a fact of life that someone of average intelligence will have a harder time amassing great wealth than someone of exceptional intelligence. I'm pretty sure my intelligence is at best slightly above average and I don't see anything wrong with that.
- sdflkd 10y ago> Nobody born with average intelligence is doomed to a life of poverty. Have you ever interacted with the under-privileged? Plenty of smart people feel their lives are doomed because of the way society is structured against them.