5 ms·

Inequality is increased because those without resources aren’t receiving any new benefits and those with resources use those resources to compensate for the fai

by vnchr 3y ago

Inequality is increased because those without resources aren’t receiving any new benefits and those with resources use those resources to compensate for the failure of the system to provide an education optimal path. It’s worse outcomes for both, except some people can shield themselves from the fallout. What new kind of self-inflicted damage will be required to realize the detrimental failure of this world view?

User23 3y ago
Where do the resources come from? Also, among those who aren’t willfully ignorant, it’s well known that increasing resources increases inequality. The classic example is height: when resources are low everyone is short. But when resources are plentiful then those with the genes for height tower above those without.
- chii 3y ago
  > But when resources are plentiful then those with the genes for height tower above those without. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Those who were short didn't fare worse in absolute terms. They only look worse off by comparison.
  - telotortium 3y ago
    That's exactly analogous to SF not offering algebra (for the students without the means to take extracurricular classes, which are disproportionately Black and Hispanic) - none of them get algebra, so they're all worse off in math in the future. With algebra offered, Black and Hispanic students may be less successful on average at algebra than other groups, but at least Black and Hispanic students that can handle algebra get a chance for better math education.
    - TimTheTinker 3y ago
      The gist of it is, there needs to be great opportunities offered without prejudice.
  - MrJohz 3y ago
    In fairness, the issues surrounding height inequality tend to be more about relative height than absolute height. So sure, shorter people can still reach the same physical heights, absolutely speaking, but they are now being judged against a broader spectrum of heights relatively speaking. Which means that they're less likely to succeed at job interviews or in relationships, and therefore end up absolutely worse off than before. Essentially, if something is a zero-sum game (e.g. there are only so many jobs around, if you get a job someone else won't), then even if someone isn't doing worse absolutely, they can still do worse overall relatively speaking. Which isn't to say that we should be giving short people stilts and cutting the legs off tall people, but it's worth recognising that these topics are complex, and even if we're only talking about absolute benefits, people can still lose out relatively speaking.
ertian 3y ago
So you figure people should give even more resources, and their children's futures, over to these people who actively hate them and just hope things will work out, despite all evidence to the contrary? My obligation is to my children. I'm happy to entrust them to a system if I have faith in it, or the people running it. If I don't...it would be downright irresponsible.
firstlink 3y ago
Well you see we just haven't tried real socialism yet. The wealthy should not be allowed to give any kind of private education including tutors to their kids. And they shouldn't be allowed to interact with their kids at all because that too causes inequity. State boarding schools all around. Then we will achieve a classless society.
- TimTheTinker 3y ago
  Exactly, that's where this line of reasoning goes. In reality, the political leaders in charge of this societal reordering will themselves become the next upper class, and you can bet with certainty they'll give their own kids the best education and opportunities they can (which will be better than what they offer the masses).

by vnchr 3y ago

User23 3y ago

Where do the resources come from? Also, among those who aren’t willfully ignorant, it’s well known that increasing resources increases inequality. The classic example is height: when resources are low everyone is short. But when resources are plentiful then those with the genes for height tower above those without.

chii 3y ago
> But when resources are plentiful then those with the genes for height tower above those without. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Those who were short didn't fare worse in absolute terms. They only look worse off by comparison.
- telotortium 3y ago
  That's exactly analogous to SF not offering algebra (for the students without the means to take extracurricular classes, which are disproportionately Black and Hispanic) - none of them get algebra, so they're all worse off in math in the future. With algebra offered, Black and Hispanic students may be less successful on average at algebra than other groups, but at least Black and Hispanic students that can handle algebra get a chance for better math education.
  - TimTheTinker 3y ago
    The gist of it is, there needs to be great opportunities offered without prejudice.
- MrJohz 3y ago
  In fairness, the issues surrounding height inequality tend to be more about relative height than absolute height. So sure, shorter people can still reach the same physical heights, absolutely speaking, but they are now being judged against a broader spectrum of heights relatively speaking. Which means that they're less likely to succeed at job interviews or in relationships, and therefore end up absolutely worse off than before. Essentially, if something is a zero-sum game (e.g. there are only so many jobs around, if you get a job someone else won't), then even if someone isn't doing worse absolutely, they can still do worse overall relatively speaking. Which isn't to say that we should be giving short people stilts and cutting the legs off tall people, but it's worth recognising that these topics are complex, and even if we're only talking about absolute benefits, people can still lose out relatively speaking.

ertian 3y ago

So you figure people should give even more resources, and their children's futures, over to these people who actively hate them and just hope things will work out, despite all evidence to the contrary? My obligation is to my children. I'm happy to entrust them to a system if I have faith in it, or the people running it. If I don't...it would be downright irresponsible.

firstlink 3y ago

Well you see we just haven't tried real socialism yet. The wealthy should not be allowed to give any kind of private education including tutors to their kids. And they shouldn't be allowed to interact with their kids at all because that too causes inequity. State boarding schools all around. Then we will achieve a classless society.

TimTheTinker 3y ago
Exactly, that's where this line of reasoning goes. In reality, the political leaders in charge of this societal reordering will themselves become the next upper class, and you can bet with certainty they'll give their own kids the best education and opportunities they can (which will be better than what they offer the masses).