4 ms·

> that way it is harder for anyone to catch up to him It's the opposite; it would be easier for people to catch up. By providing more funding for health, housi

> that way it is harder for anyone to catch up to him It's the opposite; it would be easier for people to catch up. By providing more funding for health, housing, and education, more people would have the opportunity to become wealthy themselves, and to do great things for society. How many potentially great developers are lost in awful educational systems, for example? The U.S. is supposed to be land of opportunity, where the belief is that anyone can thrive given liberty and opportunity, and that talent does not depend on the wealth of your parents. Right now, college education is determined, more than anything else, by parental wealth or income. If you mean that it's harder for other billionaires to catch him, it's kind to consider their welfare. But as Gates would pay more tax than the other billionaires, they would catch up to him.

KhanMahGretsch 9y ago
>The U.S. is supposed to be land of opportunity, where the belief is that anyone can thrive given liberty and opportunity, and that talent does not depend on the wealth of your parent To offer an alternative interpretation, I’ve always seen the “American Dream” as opportunity to improve your position in life, rather than creating an entirely-level playing field for all. The latter experiment has been attempted many times in the 20th century in many nations, and the results have not been encouraging, to say the least. Besides wealth-of-money, many kids benefit from parents with wealth of character, intelligence, wisdom, and even love; the importance of these cannot be understated. I agree, of course, that wealth has never been more important in determining one’s ability to receive a good education, and that is a major problem. One solution could be to increase funding for public schools... but I am rapidly losing faith in the results they deliver. The most disadvantaged people are priced-out of the market for private schools, and the same can be said for many in the middle-class. There is also a fundamental problem at play: those not suited for academia, but have much value to offer society, are always going to slip through the cracks under the “must-be-college-educated” paradigm. I want plenty of low-skilled jobs with a reasonable wage available for those who just want an income, while they tinker away at their genius invention in the evening, for example.
- rootusrootus 9y ago
  In my [layman's limited] experience, the definition of "The American Dream" that most economists use is exactly what you suggest; the ability to move up a level (or more) from the starting position. Easy to quantify and measure. And by this measurement, the majority of the rest of the Western world is better at offering The American Dream to their citizens than America is.
- gremlinsinc 9y ago
  Something like 60% of Americans have less than $1000 in the bank. 69% live paycheck to paycheck. I don't see how not having at least a modicum of financial safety net could possibly be considered 'living the American dream'.. The American dream is just that - for most people it's just a dream, something to hope for but never achieve.
  - KhanMahGretsch 9y ago
    >a modicum of financial safety net This is why I'm generally in favour of policies that create jobs, as the welfare system has utterly failed in creating upward-mobility for those in need and their progeny. (Edit: it's worth nothing that many charitable organisations do incredible work, with more cents of the dollars donated reaching those in need that gov. programs). This is based on my presupposition that those people could, and would, thrive in an environment with more opportunities for work. Edit: the downvote heat for non-socialist perspectives on HN is unreal. Simply unreal.
    - throwaway1748 9y ago
      Yeah, I really don't get why your post is being downvoted. There's nothing inflammatory in it, just an opinion. Censoring opinions you don't agree with via downvote shouldn't be acceptable on HN
      - Majora320 9y ago
        That's not censorship...
tensor_rank_0 9y ago
> How many potentially great developers are lost in awful educational systems, for example? not for lack of funding. taxing the shit out of billionaires isnt going to fix the structural problems that make the schools a poor environment for developing young minds. >But as Gates would pay more tax than the other billionaires, they would catch up to him. thats not really how progressive tax rates work. if he is paying more taxes under the same system he still has more after taxes. of course since he pledged to "give it way" then I guess theres nothing to tax?
- Can_Not 9y ago
  > taxing the shit out of billionaires isnt going to fix the structural problems that make the schools a poor environment for developing young minds It's going to be hard to fix those problems without taxing them. I'd say the right to an education trumps the right to have a billion dollars.
  - tensor_rank_0 9y ago
    > It's going to be hard to fix those problems without taxing them. its going to be hard to fix those problems if your only tool is "even more of some rich guy's money". there are structural problems, these schools have enough money to pay administrative staff into the 6 figures. theres no accountability as to the outcomes. its not a lack of funding. its a systemic problem.

KhanMahGretsch 9y ago

>The U.S. is supposed to be land of opportunity, where the belief is that anyone can thrive given liberty and opportunity, and that talent does not depend on the wealth of your parent To offer an alternative interpretation, I’ve always seen the “American Dream” as opportunity to improve your position in life, rather than creating an entirely-level playing field for all. The latter experiment has been attempted many times in the 20th century in many nations, and the results have not been encouraging, to say the least. Besides wealth-of-money, many kids benefit from parents with wealth of character, intelligence, wisdom, and even love; the importance of these cannot be understated. I agree, of course, that wealth has never been more important in determining one’s ability to receive a good education, and that is a major problem. One solution could be to increase funding for public schools... but I am rapidly losing faith in the results they deliver. The most disadvantaged people are priced-out of the market for private schools, and the same can be said for many in the middle-class. There is also a fundamental problem at play: those not suited for academia, but have much value to offer society, are always going to slip through the cracks under the “must-be-college-educated” paradigm. I want plenty of low-skilled jobs with a reasonable wage available for those who just want an income, while they tinker away at their genius invention in the evening, for example.

rootusrootus 9y ago
In my [layman's limited] experience, the definition of "The American Dream" that most economists use is exactly what you suggest; the ability to move up a level (or more) from the starting position. Easy to quantify and measure. And by this measurement, the majority of the rest of the Western world is better at offering The American Dream to their citizens than America is.
gremlinsinc 9y ago
Something like 60% of Americans have less than $1000 in the bank. 69% live paycheck to paycheck. I don't see how not having at least a modicum of financial safety net could possibly be considered 'living the American dream'.. The American dream is just that - for most people it's just a dream, something to hope for but never achieve.
- KhanMahGretsch 9y ago
  >a modicum of financial safety net This is why I'm generally in favour of policies that create jobs, as the welfare system has utterly failed in creating upward-mobility for those in need and their progeny. (Edit: it's worth nothing that many charitable organisations do incredible work, with more cents of the dollars donated reaching those in need that gov. programs). This is based on my presupposition that those people could, and would, thrive in an environment with more opportunities for work. Edit: the downvote heat for non-socialist perspectives on HN is unreal. Simply unreal.
  - throwaway1748 9y ago
    Yeah, I really don't get why your post is being downvoted. There's nothing inflammatory in it, just an opinion. Censoring opinions you don't agree with via downvote shouldn't be acceptable on HN
    - Majora320 9y ago
      That's not censorship...

tensor_rank_0 9y ago

> How many potentially great developers are lost in awful educational systems, for example? not for lack of funding. taxing the shit out of billionaires isnt going to fix the structural problems that make the schools a poor environment for developing young minds. >But as Gates would pay more tax than the other billionaires, they would catch up to him. thats not really how progressive tax rates work. if he is paying more taxes under the same system he still has more after taxes. of course since he pledged to "give it way" then I guess theres nothing to tax?

Can_Not 9y ago
> taxing the shit out of billionaires isnt going to fix the structural problems that make the schools a poor environment for developing young minds It's going to be hard to fix those problems without taxing them. I'd say the right to an education trumps the right to have a billion dollars.
- tensor_rank_0 9y ago
  > It's going to be hard to fix those problems without taxing them. its going to be hard to fix those problems if your only tool is "even more of some rich guy's money". there are structural problems, these schools have enough money to pay administrative staff into the 6 figures. theres no accountability as to the outcomes. its not a lack of funding. its a systemic problem.