3 ms·

The argument you’re presenting here is an argument by exception. Plenty of people survive accidents when not wearing seatbelts. That does not prove that not we

The argument you’re presenting here is an argument by exception. Plenty of people survive accidents when not wearing seatbelts. That does not prove that not wearing seatbelts is okay.

lapcat 3y ago
But the rich are the exceptions. The discussion is about economic inequality: "economic inequality on a social level cannot be explained by bad choices among the poor nor by good decisions among the rich." People try to argue that the rich got to be rich because they make good decisions. I'm pointing out that the ultra-rich — and yes, the ultra-rich are the exception, the most economically unequal — make the same so-called "bad" decisions as average people or poor people. There's a ridiculous double standard where we blame poor people for making bad decisions but give rich people a break for making the same damn decisions.
- darth_avocado 3y ago
  When you say rich, you refer to billionaires or millionaires, which may be the exception. But I’m reality even if you compare the top 10% excluding billionaires with the rest, decision making is a very big part of what gets you there. That may not be the only predictor, which was my original comment, but arguing decision making does not affect income inequality is pretty ridiculous.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    Why is it ridiculous? An alternative explanation is opportunity plus randomness. You already admitted that there's a large element of randomness to life: "Plenty of people survive accidents when not wearing seatbelts." And by the way, is there any evidence that the seatbelt wearing rate varies across economic classes? People of economic means have a lot more opportunities than other people. And that's certainly no guarantee of success, but a certain % of opportunities will randomly work out, whether they involved "good" or "bad" decisions. This means it's much easier to succeed if you grow up with economic advantages, even if the level of talent is evenly distributed among all economic classes. Let me put it this way: the reason to go to Harvard or Stanford isn't the "education". Calculus for example is the same anywhere. The actual classes at a state university are comparable to the classes at an "elite" university. The reason people desperately want to go to the elite universities is to meet the elite. It's about social networking. You get more opportunities if you know the right people. That should be obvious.

The argument you’re presenting here is an argument by exception. Plenty of people survive accidents when not wearing seatbelts. That does not prove that not wearing seatbelts is okay.

lapcat 3y ago

But the rich are the exceptions. The discussion is about economic inequality: "economic inequality on a social level cannot be explained by bad choices among the poor nor by good decisions among the rich." People try to argue that the rich got to be rich because they make good decisions. I'm pointing out that the ultra-rich — and yes, the ultra-rich are the exception, the most economically unequal — make the same so-called "bad" decisions as average people or poor people. There's a ridiculous double standard where we blame poor people for making bad decisions but give rich people a break for making the same damn decisions.

darth_avocado 3y ago
When you say rich, you refer to billionaires or millionaires, which may be the exception. But I’m reality even if you compare the top 10% excluding billionaires with the rest, decision making is a very big part of what gets you there. That may not be the only predictor, which was my original comment, but arguing decision making does not affect income inequality is pretty ridiculous.
- lapcat 3y ago
  Why is it ridiculous? An alternative explanation is opportunity plus randomness. You already admitted that there's a large element of randomness to life: "Plenty of people survive accidents when not wearing seatbelts." And by the way, is there any evidence that the seatbelt wearing rate varies across economic classes? People of economic means have a lot more opportunities than other people. And that's certainly no guarantee of success, but a certain % of opportunities will randomly work out, whether they involved "good" or "bad" decisions. This means it's much easier to succeed if you grow up with economic advantages, even if the level of talent is evenly distributed among all economic classes. Let me put it this way: the reason to go to Harvard or Stanford isn't the "education". Calculus for example is the same anywhere. The actual classes at a state university are comparable to the classes at an "elite" university. The reason people desperately want to go to the elite universities is to meet the elite. It's about social networking. You get more opportunities if you know the right people. That should be obvious.