5 ms·

Income inequality is only "unachievable" exactly because of thinking like this. If people were genuinely invested in equality they would be asking "what can i d

Income inequality is only "unachievable" exactly because of thinking like this. If people were genuinely invested in equality they would be asking "what can i do to get us there faster?" instead of being defeatist and calling it unachievable because you didn't personally create the problem.

asdf21 7y ago
You didn't answer his question, created a strawman, put words in his mouth, implied he doesn't care about equality (isn't treating people equally, regardless of race equality?)... goodness.
- smashthepants 7y ago
  He explicitly said income equality is unachievable. I didn't put those words in his mouth. You can't answer the question of "when" if a person has already decided the goal is unachievable. Again, those were his words not mine The temporary measures will end WHEN people are genuinely interested enough to help regardless of whether they created the problem. That is my answer. You just don't like it. And that's ok....
  - tomschlick 7y ago
    When, in the history of humanity, has income ever been at an acceptable level of equality? If you/the people who support such a policy can't define an explicit goal then I'd say that's pretty unachievable.
    - smashthepants 7y ago
      The goal is defined - equality. If it mattered to you it wouldn't be a complicated concept to grasp. And just as I said in my previous comment, this is the exact sentiment that prevents the goal of equality from being reached. Just because something has never been done that doesn't mean that it can't be done. And if you and everyone who doesn't support such a policy are unwilling to participate, then you're right, it will never be achieved.
      - tomschlick 7y ago
        There will always be rich, there will always be poor. That's simple economics. There has not been a society in human history that hasn't had those. Pretending that you can magically wish that away is crazy. Our system is based on equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If there are issues with the opportunity then we should work to fix those (like is already being done in inner cities cleaning up the drugs/pushing out gangs/preventing fatherless homes/etc). But pretending that you're going to fix those socioeconomic issues by giving preferential treatment to people based on race is just pulling other problems into the mix and is blatantly racist.
        smashthepants 7y ago
        The problems were created by giving preferential treatment based on race, but the solution is to ignore race? No one is advocating wishing anything away. If you want to focus specifically on equality of opportunity you can't do so without recognizing that race directly affects which opportunities are available to whom. Any solution that ignores that is just more of the same. And doing more of the same only extends the timeline of "when" that the original comment took issue with.
mikelyons 7y ago
Income equality is outcome equality, which is unenforceable.
- maehwasu 7y ago
  It’s very enforceable. It’s just that it really, really sucks to live in a society that implements that enforcement.
  - mikelyons 7y ago
    I don't believe you, can you give some examples?
    - maehwasu 7y ago
      Khmer Rouge killing lots of intellectuals is one classic example, although most socialist revolutions had their own variants. I suppose you can do a No True Scotsman and say that those weren’t truly enforcing equality of outcome since there were people at the top of that society doing the enforcing, but most would find that argument pretty strained.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- chii 7y ago
  it should be opportunity equality, rather than outcome equality. Everyone should have the chance at getting educated, but not everyone needs to pass or excel - it is up to the individual to succeed, but it is up to society to provide the opportunity to succeed. That is why schooling (primary, secondary and tertiary) should be free for everyone.
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    And why school funding shouldn't be based on the neighborhood it is in.

asdf21 7y ago

You didn't answer his question, created a strawman, put words in his mouth, implied he doesn't care about equality (isn't treating people equally, regardless of race equality?)... goodness.

smashthepants 7y ago
He explicitly said income equality is unachievable. I didn't put those words in his mouth. You can't answer the question of "when" if a person has already decided the goal is unachievable. Again, those were his words not mine The temporary measures will end WHEN people are genuinely interested enough to help regardless of whether they created the problem. That is my answer. You just don't like it. And that's ok....
- tomschlick 7y ago
  When, in the history of humanity, has income ever been at an acceptable level of equality? If you/the people who support such a policy can't define an explicit goal then I'd say that's pretty unachievable.
  - smashthepants 7y ago
    The goal is defined - equality. If it mattered to you it wouldn't be a complicated concept to grasp. And just as I said in my previous comment, this is the exact sentiment that prevents the goal of equality from being reached. Just because something has never been done that doesn't mean that it can't be done. And if you and everyone who doesn't support such a policy are unwilling to participate, then you're right, it will never be achieved.
    - tomschlick 7y ago
      There will always be rich, there will always be poor. That's simple economics. There has not been a society in human history that hasn't had those. Pretending that you can magically wish that away is crazy. Our system is based on equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If there are issues with the opportunity then we should work to fix those (like is already being done in inner cities cleaning up the drugs/pushing out gangs/preventing fatherless homes/etc). But pretending that you're going to fix those socioeconomic issues by giving preferential treatment to people based on race is just pulling other problems into the mix and is blatantly racist.
      - smashthepants 7y ago
        The problems were created by giving preferential treatment based on race, but the solution is to ignore race? No one is advocating wishing anything away. If you want to focus specifically on equality of opportunity you can't do so without recognizing that race directly affects which opportunities are available to whom. Any solution that ignores that is just more of the same. And doing more of the same only extends the timeline of "when" that the original comment took issue with.

mikelyons 7y ago

Income equality is outcome equality, which is unenforceable.

maehwasu 7y ago
It’s very enforceable. It’s just that it really, really sucks to live in a society that implements that enforcement.
- mikelyons 7y ago
  I don't believe you, can you give some examples?
  - maehwasu 7y ago
    Khmer Rouge killing lots of intellectuals is one classic example, although most socialist revolutions had their own variants. I suppose you can do a No True Scotsman and say that those weren’t truly enforcing equality of outcome since there were people at the top of that society doing the enforcing, but most would find that argument pretty strained.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
chii 7y ago
it should be opportunity equality, rather than outcome equality. Everyone should have the chance at getting educated, but not everyone needs to pass or excel - it is up to the individual to succeed, but it is up to society to provide the opportunity to succeed. That is why schooling (primary, secondary and tertiary) should be free for everyone.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  And why school funding shouldn't be based on the neighborhood it is in.