5 ms·

Quite right. It's about equality of opportunity. Many of the more egregious examples unequal wealth in current society typically stem from previous inequality

Quite right. It's about equality of opportunity. Many of the more egregious examples unequal wealth in current society typically stem from previous inequality of opportunity passed down through generations, so the pressure to correct the wealth imbalance and the inequality of opportunity gets mixed together.

ajb 9y ago
Equality of wealth is too strong a condition, but when you start to think about it, equality of opportunity is actually a pretty weak one. Of course, it would be good to have - I don't disagree with that. But one of the things the principal of equality is supposed to rule out is slavery. Suppose everyone is given the same education up to age 12, was then required to take an exam , with the top 1% becoming owners of the other 99%. That would still be equality of opportunity - but I think you'd agree that wouldn't be real equality. What I think people mean by equality is that it should not be possible for an individual or group to obtain some overbearing degree of dominance over another individual or group. So that even if there is a disparity in wealth, there should still be a sense in which you are dealing with each other as equals.
- jakelazaroff 9y ago
  > What I think people mean by equality is that it should not be possible for an individual or group to obtain some overbearing degree of dominance over another individual or group. I think this is the crux of the issue, and money most often is just the most relevant and quantifiable measure of that.
  - platz 9y ago
    Rawl's "Veil of Ignorance" allows for _some_ inequality, but only as much as you would allow being born into if you didn't know where in the world you'd be born.
humanrebar 9y ago
The richest people in the U.S. aren't Hapsburgs, Rockefellers, or Kennedys. They largely started out in upper middle class, maybe a little better off than that, and then founded huge empires based on a combination of business savvy and innovative disruption. The Waltons inherited their wealth, but the ones on the richest people list inherited directly from Sam Walton, whose story certainly fits that bill. "Passed down through generations" makes it seem like there's some sort of grand lineage, and I haven't seen any data to back that up.
sokoloff 9y ago
> stem from previous inequality of opportunity passed down through generations There's a positive aspect to this as well, though. My grandparents (coal miner and steel miller) made sacrifices and investments in order that my parents could be the first generation in their family to attend college and become school teachers. My parents made sacrifices and investments in order that my siblings and I could attain a better life than they had. My wife and I are making sacrifices and investments to help our children attain their individual maximum potential and satisfaction in life. Instituting a giant red "perfect reset button" for each generation precludes the sensibility of those investments and I believe harms society overall.
- alansammarone 9y ago
  Why? I don't see any way in which it would be "fair" to get an advantage (or disadvantage) because you happen to have been born in a particular family, which is a random process. Of course, there are implementation difficulties associated with it - how would you enforce something like that - but in essence I think it's a pretty good idea.
  - jpttsn 9y ago
    It's not a random process. Babies aren't allocated by the stork.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    I have a dollar. I can spend that dollar or save that dollar. If I save that dollar, I can spend it later or have someone that I care about spend it later. My kids, by luck of birth, were born into a family that values education; we read to them every single night, do crafts, science, engineering things, and tend a garden at home. Why is it fair that they get those advantages? In addition to being barred from passing along the money I don't spend in retirement, should I also be blocked from reading to my kids more than some community maximum; should our library or museum trips be capped? Should kids be blocked from getting grandma's wedding band just because it has an economic value? I don't work and save/invest only for myself; I do so for my family, including those who will actuarially live longer than me.

ajb 9y ago

Equality of wealth is too strong a condition, but when you start to think about it, equality of opportunity is actually a pretty weak one. Of course, it would be good to have - I don't disagree with that. But one of the things the principal of equality is supposed to rule out is slavery. Suppose everyone is given the same education up to age 12, was then required to take an exam , with the top 1% becoming owners of the other 99%. That would still be equality of opportunity - but I think you'd agree that wouldn't be real equality. What I think people mean by equality is that it should not be possible for an individual or group to obtain some overbearing degree of dominance over another individual or group. So that even if there is a disparity in wealth, there should still be a sense in which you are dealing with each other as equals.

jakelazaroff 9y ago
> What I think people mean by equality is that it should not be possible for an individual or group to obtain some overbearing degree of dominance over another individual or group. I think this is the crux of the issue, and money most often is just the most relevant and quantifiable measure of that.
- platz 9y ago
  Rawl's "Veil of Ignorance" allows for _some_ inequality, but only as much as you would allow being born into if you didn't know where in the world you'd be born.

humanrebar 9y ago

The richest people in the U.S. aren't Hapsburgs, Rockefellers, or Kennedys. They largely started out in upper middle class, maybe a little better off than that, and then founded huge empires based on a combination of business savvy and innovative disruption. The Waltons inherited their wealth, but the ones on the richest people list inherited directly from Sam Walton, whose story certainly fits that bill. "Passed down through generations" makes it seem like there's some sort of grand lineage, and I haven't seen any data to back that up.

sokoloff 9y ago

> stem from previous inequality of opportunity passed down through generations There's a positive aspect to this as well, though. My grandparents (coal miner and steel miller) made sacrifices and investments in order that my parents could be the first generation in their family to attend college and become school teachers. My parents made sacrifices and investments in order that my siblings and I could attain a better life than they had. My wife and I are making sacrifices and investments to help our children attain their individual maximum potential and satisfaction in life. Instituting a giant red "perfect reset button" for each generation precludes the sensibility of those investments and I believe harms society overall.

alansammarone 9y ago
Why? I don't see any way in which it would be "fair" to get an advantage (or disadvantage) because you happen to have been born in a particular family, which is a random process. Of course, there are implementation difficulties associated with it - how would you enforce something like that - but in essence I think it's a pretty good idea.
- jpttsn 9y ago
  It's not a random process. Babies aren't allocated by the stork.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  I have a dollar. I can spend that dollar or save that dollar. If I save that dollar, I can spend it later or have someone that I care about spend it later. My kids, by luck of birth, were born into a family that values education; we read to them every single night, do crafts, science, engineering things, and tend a garden at home. Why is it fair that they get those advantages? In addition to being barred from passing along the money I don't spend in retirement, should I also be blocked from reading to my kids more than some community maximum; should our library or museum trips be capped? Should kids be blocked from getting grandma's wedding band just because it has an economic value? I don't work and save/invest only for myself; I do so for my family, including those who will actuarially live longer than me.