3 ms·

That would kill social mobility.

• gruez 8y ago
  why?
  • treerock 8y ago
    Social mobility requires a lot of work and money and time. How would you get a mortgage on a house, or save for your kids' education if any wealth you accrue risks getting re-allocated? (Guess it depends on your value of X)
    • gruez 8y ago
      >Social mobility requires a lot of work and money and time. I think you're conflating social mobility with income growth. all social mobility means is how easy it is to change your social status in terms of wealth. while it's true that randomly redistributing wealth will disincentivise hard work, it doesn't matter because the shuffling will still change everybody's social status.
      • treerock 8y ago
        Sorry but I don't think I'm conflating anything. Social status doesn't change just because you are given money, or have it taken away.
    • TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
      Social mobility primarily requires opportunity and networking contacts - or at a minimum, the skills required to find them. Otherwise the work, money, and time are going to be wasted. As for the second part of your comment - what if you didn't need to go into debt, and education was free?
    • scarecrowbob 8y ago
      "How would you get a mortgage on a house, or save for your kids' education if any wealth you accrue risks getting re-allocated?" I think that's a legitimately interesting question. Maybe the actors in that situation would attempt to build systems that don't rely on having outcomes based on individuals accruing wealth for themselves, but instead on collective assets that everyone has access to at all times. Pragmatically, yeah, there are all kinds of problems with this concept, but for me your question does more to make radical, frequent, and random wealth reallocation interesting than it does to point out a flaw with the idea.