3 ms·

I think most people promoting redistribution would agree on the benefits of equality of opportunity over outcome (obviously not all). They would simply argue t

I think most people promoting redistribution would agree on the benefits of equality of opportunity over outcome (obviously not all). They would simply argue that equality of opportunity is not there yet and the Gini coefficient can perhaps be used to measure that. For example if the Nordic countries operate well and have better equality of opportunity in the 30s as opposed to the US's 40s and we have seen in the past that the 30s worked well for the US then perhaps it's the 30s we should be shooting for with our efforts.

robomartin 7y ago
Sure, but you have to consider that the often-touted Nordic countries have a very different demographic composition than the US. Easy example: Estimates place the illegal immigrant population of the US somewhere in the 25 million range (as a conservative estimate). Assuming half of them are of working age, that is, in rough terms, over 10% of the portion of the US population that is working (about 108 million). The vast majority of the people who enter the US in this manner do not have college degrees or high-value professions. Which means their earning potential will be severely reduced. Take 10% of the workforce in any Nordic country, replace it with people who are educationally challenged and the numbers will look very different. Please note: I am NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, arguing that we should not try to do better. However, certain things are simply inescapable realities that simply take tons of time and effort to improve. Not to go too far, the US is famous for spending more money per student than, dare I say, most nations in the world, and yet our educational results in mathematics, language and other areas don't rank very well at all when compared to nations with much less to spend. Inequality at work. Money isn't the only variable. Perhaps that's the real thing that bothers me about these discussions about inequality. These are complex multivariate problems and these discussions make it sound like the only variable worth considering is how much money the top 1% have. It isn't. In fact, I would venture to guess that this factor or variable might not even make the list of the top 100 factors if we were to make such a list from a framework of being brutally honest rather than political. Simple example of this: Brutal dictatorial regimes hold back their population, cause misery, suffering and inequality. That's a big one. Places like Latin America, North Korea, the Middle East and a good deal of Africa are afflicted by this. Do we, the "civilized world" in the name of creating equal opportunity and access to better outcomes, invade all of these countries, depose all tyrants and institute one hundred years of external benevolent control? This is crazy, of course, but it is also reality. As a single example, I researched the Paris Accord in great detail and learned that dictators were enriching themselves, their families and associates with the money put into the system by the US and Europe. Money that was supposed to be devoted towards these nations becoming "greener" ended-up buying the ruling class new jets, cars and other "energy efficient" luxuries. So, yeah, the "do we invade and rule" scenario isn't too far fetched if we truly care about creating equality of opportunity and elevating millions out of truly deplorable conditions. Not an easy problem. Not a single variable problem. And the "richest 1%" thing is a complete red herring.
- HammockWarrior 7y ago
  Illegal immigration and what happens in other countries are at best a red herring here because illegal immigrants aren't typically eligible for benefits and are typically working off the books. The US government has responsibility for its citizens, not those of Mexico or Latin America. Also keep in mind many of the proposed redistribution efforts fall squarely in the "equality of opportunity" column which you claim to support. For example, free or very cheap higher education. If we want to be as educated as the Nordic countries this would go a long way. Or taxpayer funded healthcare. This would both reduce the total cost of healthcare and also greatly improve access. It's hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you're sick and can't afford to see a doctor. Perhaps let me turn this conversation around. Rather than throwing up your hands and saying "it's complex", what specific policies would you support to improve equality of opportunity?
  - tropo 7y ago
    It is misleading to say that "illegal immigrants aren't typically eligible for benefits". Eligibility for benefits happens via children and partners. The group of people thus receives benefits that are then shared. Via this mechanism, families containing non-citizens consume more benefits than families composed purely of citizens.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

robomartin 7y ago

Sure, but you have to consider that the often-touted Nordic countries have a very different demographic composition than the US. Easy example: Estimates place the illegal immigrant population of the US somewhere in the 25 million range (as a conservative estimate). Assuming half of them are of working age, that is, in rough terms, over 10% of the portion of the US population that is working (about 108 million). The vast majority of the people who enter the US in this manner do not have college degrees or high-value professions. Which means their earning potential will be severely reduced. Take 10% of the workforce in any Nordic country, replace it with people who are educationally challenged and the numbers will look very different. Please note: I am NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, arguing that we should not try to do better. However, certain things are simply inescapable realities that simply take tons of time and effort to improve. Not to go too far, the US is famous for spending more money per student than, dare I say, most nations in the world, and yet our educational results in mathematics, language and other areas don't rank very well at all when compared to nations with much less to spend. Inequality at work. Money isn't the only variable. Perhaps that's the real thing that bothers me about these discussions about inequality. These are complex multivariate problems and these discussions make it sound like the only variable worth considering is how much money the top 1% have. It isn't. In fact, I would venture to guess that this factor or variable might not even make the list of the top 100 factors if we were to make such a list from a framework of being brutally honest rather than political. Simple example of this: Brutal dictatorial regimes hold back their population, cause misery, suffering and inequality. That's a big one. Places like Latin America, North Korea, the Middle East and a good deal of Africa are afflicted by this. Do we, the "civilized world" in the name of creating equal opportunity and access to better outcomes, invade all of these countries, depose all tyrants and institute one hundred years of external benevolent control? This is crazy, of course, but it is also reality. As a single example, I researched the Paris Accord in great detail and learned that dictators were enriching themselves, their families and associates with the money put into the system by the US and Europe. Money that was supposed to be devoted towards these nations becoming "greener" ended-up buying the ruling class new jets, cars and other "energy efficient" luxuries. So, yeah, the "do we invade and rule" scenario isn't too far fetched if we truly care about creating equality of opportunity and elevating millions out of truly deplorable conditions. Not an easy problem. Not a single variable problem. And the "richest 1%" thing is a complete red herring.

HammockWarrior 7y ago
Illegal immigration and what happens in other countries are at best a red herring here because illegal immigrants aren't typically eligible for benefits and are typically working off the books. The US government has responsibility for its citizens, not those of Mexico or Latin America. Also keep in mind many of the proposed redistribution efforts fall squarely in the "equality of opportunity" column which you claim to support. For example, free or very cheap higher education. If we want to be as educated as the Nordic countries this would go a long way. Or taxpayer funded healthcare. This would both reduce the total cost of healthcare and also greatly improve access. It's hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you're sick and can't afford to see a doctor. Perhaps let me turn this conversation around. Rather than throwing up your hands and saying "it's complex", what specific policies would you support to improve equality of opportunity?
- tropo 7y ago
  It is misleading to say that "illegal immigrants aren't typically eligible for benefits". Eligibility for benefits happens via children and partners. The group of people thus receives benefits that are then shared. Via this mechanism, families containing non-citizens consume more benefits than families composed purely of citizens.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]