7 ms·

The fact remains that everyone starts with nothing. The parent questions why some are able to flourish, while others continue with nothing indefinitely.

grasshopperpurp 9y ago
>The fact remains that everyone starts with nothing. This is clearly wrong.
- randomdata 9y ago
  I struggle to see what is inherently bestowed upon a new born child beyond life itself? The child may eventually be given things, but that's not the same thing as what we are talking about. Some examples of how it is clearly wrong would be useful, because there is nothing clear about it to me.
  - tangent128 9y ago
    If the question is "why some are able to flourish, while others continue with nothing indefinitely", then the fact that some children are given $millions in liquid assets where others are lucky to be given food and clothing would certainly seen germane.
    - randomdata 9y ago
      But that is outside what someone starts with. When a child is born, those millions will be originally held in the same of someone else (perhaps the parents, grandparents, whoever). It may be transferred to the child, but it remains that the child started with nothing. On the question of why some flourish and others do not, I think you're just echoing the point that has persisted through this entire thread.
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    >The fact remains that everyone starts with nothing. The parent questions why some are able to flourish, while others continue with nothing indefinitely. This is your entire statement. If you're wondering why some are able to flourish while others aren't, getting hung up on the technicalities of a pointless statement is a poor start. We know that people are born under various circumstances ranging from remarkably poor to exceptionally rich, and we know that's the best indicator of future wealth. Yes, they have to inherit the money at some point, but they grow up experiencing the benefits (and drawbacks) of that wealth - whether or not it's in their names.
  - indemnity 9y ago
    Privilege is invisible to you? Must be nice. Health of mother - Advantage. Mother being able to take care of child in the early years - Advantage. Dad present - Advantage. Encouraging, safe home environment - Advantage. Parents that expect and encourage excellence (sports, academic) - Advantage. Never going hungry - Advantage. Going to schools with resources and good teachers - Advantage. Going to good college - Advantage. Parents connections (business and academic) - Advantage. These advantages compound. There will be outliers with none or only some of this who still happen to make it. They are not common, and not proof that the system works as intended.
beambot 9y ago
> The fact remains that everyone starts with nothing. Not even close to true... Simply look at socioeconomic status across generations.
- randomdata 9y ago
  The transfer of wealth through generations is wealth that is still held in family name until the time that it is given to the child. The child still starts with none. Ownership is not automatic in our society. It has to be transferred.
  - jokermatt999 9y ago
    Ok, fine. They still have to inherit that money. But as they grow up, the rich baby will have access to better nutrition, better education, a less stressful environment, etc compared to the poor baby. That's without considering fetal health/nutrition. There are many known factors that can affect a child's health, growth, and intelligence, and therefore success. I don't think the distinction of "babies have $0" is relevant when considering all the other potential advantages. What are you getting at with that claim? I don't think it's particularly clear, judging by the other replies.
    - indemnity 9y ago
      He suffers from the affliction, that, having mastered programming, all other domains of human endeavour must be as reducible to simple logical constructs, and the world just needs him, to come and show how simple it really is. It’s crazy how many think they have a monopoly on intelligence by virtue of being able to tell the machine what to do. A logical statement in isolation is seen as sufficient to win arguments (like “babies have no money at birth”). Wow, thanks Socrates, now I see the light. The scales have fallen from my eyes.
tabeth 9y ago
The "fact" that everyone starts with nothing is obviously false. Even ignoring opportunity, the fetal health is highly dependent on the environment.
- randomdata 9y ago
  Given that we're talking about wealth – something that you measure on a balance sheet – is fetal health something that should be included? My experience with accounting says no, but I'm not a professional accountant. Perhaps you have misunderstood this discussion?
  - tabeth 9y ago
    If you don't think the health of the fetus, and subsequently the child and adult has anything to do with poverty then I dunno what I tell ya.
    - randomdata 9y ago
      While I understand how the health of the fetus relates to poverty, I fail to see how that has anything to do with this particular discussion? We are talking about how everyone starts with nothing. The balance sheet of all brand new people to world always starts empty.
      - tabeth 9y ago
        You're missing the point. Saying everyone starts off with a blank slate is like saying everyone born starts off alive. It's a useless statement. The point is that the quality of life upon birth is different. Said qualities result in the discrepancies you see today. EDIT: Furthermore, originally you stated: > The fact remains that everyone starts with nothing It's already been illustrated this is false. If you believe quality of life at birth is different, then by definition, everyone does not start off with nothing, or zero. People start off with the qualities possessed at birth.
        9y ago
zentiggr 9y ago
Unless you are asserting that estate taxes are 100% for everyone and no one is allowed any hint of nepotism or gifting, you are wrong. How do the 1% stay the 1% across generations?
SauciestGNU 9y ago
People start with extremely unequal circumstances. Social mobility is low and those born with wealth will keep it and those born without are unlikely to ever attain it. This platonic ideal where everyone starts on equal footing and some people are just better than others at accumulating wealth is absurd.
- thebigspacefuck 9y ago
  It would be interesting to see a real life Trading Places and see how well the unwealthy do given a wealthy lifestyle. Or can we just look at lottery winners?

grasshopperpurp 9y ago

>The fact remains that everyone starts with nothing. This is clearly wrong.

randomdata 9y ago
I struggle to see what is inherently bestowed upon a new born child beyond life itself? The child may eventually be given things, but that's not the same thing as what we are talking about. Some examples of how it is clearly wrong would be useful, because there is nothing clear about it to me.
- tangent128 9y ago
  If the question is "why some are able to flourish, while others continue with nothing indefinitely", then the fact that some children are given $millions in liquid assets where others are lucky to be given food and clothing would certainly seen germane.
  - randomdata 9y ago
    But that is outside what someone starts with. When a child is born, those millions will be originally held in the same of someone else (perhaps the parents, grandparents, whoever). It may be transferred to the child, but it remains that the child started with nothing. On the question of why some flourish and others do not, I think you're just echoing the point that has persisted through this entire thread.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  >The fact remains that everyone starts with nothing. The parent questions why some are able to flourish, while others continue with nothing indefinitely. This is your entire statement. If you're wondering why some are able to flourish while others aren't, getting hung up on the technicalities of a pointless statement is a poor start. We know that people are born under various circumstances ranging from remarkably poor to exceptionally rich, and we know that's the best indicator of future wealth. Yes, they have to inherit the money at some point, but they grow up experiencing the benefits (and drawbacks) of that wealth - whether or not it's in their names.
- indemnity 9y ago
  Privilege is invisible to you? Must be nice. Health of mother - Advantage. Mother being able to take care of child in the early years - Advantage. Dad present - Advantage. Encouraging, safe home environment - Advantage. Parents that expect and encourage excellence (sports, academic) - Advantage. Never going hungry - Advantage. Going to schools with resources and good teachers - Advantage. Going to good college - Advantage. Parents connections (business and academic) - Advantage. These advantages compound. There will be outliers with none or only some of this who still happen to make it. They are not common, and not proof that the system works as intended.

beambot 9y ago

> The fact remains that everyone starts with nothing. Not even close to true... Simply look at socioeconomic status across generations.

randomdata 9y ago
The transfer of wealth through generations is wealth that is still held in family name until the time that it is given to the child. The child still starts with none. Ownership is not automatic in our society. It has to be transferred.
- jokermatt999 9y ago
  Ok, fine. They still have to inherit that money. But as they grow up, the rich baby will have access to better nutrition, better education, a less stressful environment, etc compared to the poor baby. That's without considering fetal health/nutrition. There are many known factors that can affect a child's health, growth, and intelligence, and therefore success. I don't think the distinction of "babies have $0" is relevant when considering all the other potential advantages. What are you getting at with that claim? I don't think it's particularly clear, judging by the other replies.
  - indemnity 9y ago
    He suffers from the affliction, that, having mastered programming, all other domains of human endeavour must be as reducible to simple logical constructs, and the world just needs him, to come and show how simple it really is. It’s crazy how many think they have a monopoly on intelligence by virtue of being able to tell the machine what to do. A logical statement in isolation is seen as sufficient to win arguments (like “babies have no money at birth”). Wow, thanks Socrates, now I see the light. The scales have fallen from my eyes.

tabeth 9y ago

The "fact" that everyone starts with nothing is obviously false. Even ignoring opportunity, the fetal health is highly dependent on the environment.

randomdata 9y ago
Given that we're talking about wealth – something that you measure on a balance sheet – is fetal health something that should be included? My experience with accounting says no, but I'm not a professional accountant. Perhaps you have misunderstood this discussion?
- tabeth 9y ago
  If you don't think the health of the fetus, and subsequently the child and adult has anything to do with poverty then I dunno what I tell ya.
  - randomdata 9y ago
    While I understand how the health of the fetus relates to poverty, I fail to see how that has anything to do with this particular discussion? We are talking about how everyone starts with nothing. The balance sheet of all brand new people to world always starts empty.
    - tabeth 9y ago
      You're missing the point. Saying everyone starts off with a blank slate is like saying everyone born starts off alive. It's a useless statement. The point is that the quality of life upon birth is different. Said qualities result in the discrepancies you see today. EDIT: Furthermore, originally you stated: > The fact remains that everyone starts with nothing It's already been illustrated this is false. If you believe quality of life at birth is different, then by definition, everyone does not start off with nothing, or zero. People start off with the qualities possessed at birth.
      - 9y ago

zentiggr 9y ago

Unless you are asserting that estate taxes are 100% for everyone and no one is allowed any hint of nepotism or gifting, you are wrong. How do the 1% stay the 1% across generations?

SauciestGNU 9y ago

People start with extremely unequal circumstances. Social mobility is low and those born with wealth will keep it and those born without are unlikely to ever attain it. This platonic ideal where everyone starts on equal footing and some people are just better than others at accumulating wealth is absurd.

thebigspacefuck 9y ago
It would be interesting to see a real life Trading Places and see how well the unwealthy do given a wealthy lifestyle. Or can we just look at lottery winners?