3 ms·

Classes in society necessitate a qualitative differentiator. If you want to argue that it's fair that some people are rich while some people are poor, there has

Classes in society necessitate a qualitative differentiator. If you want to argue that it's fair that some people are rich while some people are poor, there has to be some natural inherent difference between the rich and the poor. Canonically in the western world it's usually "gumption" or "intelligence". You'll rarely find that argument made explicitly, but it's implicit in all discussions that presuppose economical classes. Once that observation is made, it becomes clear that the argument is actually: This class of people is unfit for better work, and without our poverty wages they would die. In my opinion that's very similar to the idea that the "negro" was inferior to the white man and therefore it was by his grace that the "negro" was allowed to exist.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> there has to be some natural inherent difference between the rich and the poor No? They can all be the same. But without individual incentives to take risks and innovate, the whole doesn’t progress. The meritocratic model works fine among equals.
- 1270018080 4y ago
  > Canonically in the western world it's usually "gumption" or "intelligence".
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Canonically in the western world it's usually "gumption" or "intelligence". reply Emphasis on natural inherence. Meritocracies work if everyone is statistically identical. They even work when everyone is perfectly identical. They don't if every action is independent and identically distributed, but it's not; being lucky in the past can make one more capable in the present even in an unbiased system. We should keep that randomness in mind to avoid being cruel. But systems that ignore this path dependence, or worse, try to stamp it out, underperform those that acknowledge it.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - delusional 4y ago
      You're just making the same argument you tried to disagree with. If there's some quality that means luck today implies luck tomorrow and it isn't just the compounding effect of capital that's exactly the western notion I'm talking about. Instead of calling it "gumption" you've just called it "luck".
      - somebodythere 4y ago
        Not really. You only have to believe that there are some complex actions which, if taken on an individual level, benefit society. For example, starting a business, or skilling into a highly demanded field such as medicine. Doing these things can be highly financially rewarding, and that means that people are more likely to attempt them than they would be otherwise. You don't have to believe the "luck begets luck", and there is certainly injustice in the way wealth lands around society, but not allowing people to become rich by taking socially-positive risks removes the marginal incentive to do so. That is, I believe, GP means by "the whole doesn't progress".
JoshuaDavid 4y ago
> If you want to argue that it's fair that some people are rich while some people are poor, there has to be some natural inherent difference between the rich and the poor. Would you consider it immoral if a thousand people of equal economic status chose to participate in a lottery where they each paid in 1% of their money, and then one person, selected at random, won all of it? Does your answer change if it's a chess tournament instead of a lottery?
patrick451 4y ago
> If you want to argue that it's fair that some people are rich while some people are poor, there has to be some natural inherent difference between the rich and the poor. I don't buy this at all. There can be no difference between me and a billionaire who inherited their wealth, but I feel under no obligation to call that unfair. They were just lucky, and that's fine.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> there has to be some natural inherent difference between the rich and the poor No? They can all be the same. But without individual incentives to take risks and innovate, the whole doesn’t progress. The meritocratic model works fine among equals.

1270018080 4y ago
> Canonically in the western world it's usually "gumption" or "intelligence".
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Canonically in the western world it's usually "gumption" or "intelligence". reply Emphasis on natural inherence. Meritocracies work if everyone is statistically identical. They even work when everyone is perfectly identical. They don't if every action is independent and identically distributed, but it's not; being lucky in the past can make one more capable in the present even in an unbiased system. We should keep that randomness in mind to avoid being cruel. But systems that ignore this path dependence, or worse, try to stamp it out, underperform those that acknowledge it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - delusional 4y ago
    You're just making the same argument you tried to disagree with. If there's some quality that means luck today implies luck tomorrow and it isn't just the compounding effect of capital that's exactly the western notion I'm talking about. Instead of calling it "gumption" you've just called it "luck".
    - somebodythere 4y ago
      Not really. You only have to believe that there are some complex actions which, if taken on an individual level, benefit society. For example, starting a business, or skilling into a highly demanded field such as medicine. Doing these things can be highly financially rewarding, and that means that people are more likely to attempt them than they would be otherwise. You don't have to believe the "luck begets luck", and there is certainly injustice in the way wealth lands around society, but not allowing people to become rich by taking socially-positive risks removes the marginal incentive to do so. That is, I believe, GP means by "the whole doesn't progress".

JoshuaDavid 4y ago

> If you want to argue that it's fair that some people are rich while some people are poor, there has to be some natural inherent difference between the rich and the poor. Would you consider it immoral if a thousand people of equal economic status chose to participate in a lottery where they each paid in 1% of their money, and then one person, selected at random, won all of it? Does your answer change if it's a chess tournament instead of a lottery?

patrick451 4y ago

> If you want to argue that it's fair that some people are rich while some people are poor, there has to be some natural inherent difference between the rich and the poor. I don't buy this at all. There can be no difference between me and a billionaire who inherited their wealth, but I feel under no obligation to call that unfair. They were just lucky, and that's fine.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]