3 ms·
I think that you are arguing against equity not equality. Usually the latter means “equality of opportunity”. At least that’s typically the difference in most d
by zeroonetwothree 2y ago
I think that you are arguing against equity not equality. Usually the latter means “equality of opportunity”. At least that’s typically the difference in most debates.
- throwaway22032 2y agoI don't consider there to be a difference. A society in which the children of successful people are prioritised over the children of unsuccessful people is almost certain to lead to better outcomes for exactly the same reasons. I came from an underprivileged background myself, if I were investing money with an aim to generating a return, I'd far sooner give it to a banker's son than someone from the estate I grew up on. I was the exception, not the rule, and the older I get the more I figure I must just be some sort of genetic freak, since the overwhelming opinion seems to be that our fate is predestined, nowadays.
- zero-sharp 2y agoFamily wealth is probably an indicator for future success. I don't know the numbers, but I would expect family wealth to correlate positively with the earnings of the children. So if you want a return on investment, it makes sense to bet on the wealthy. But I thought we were talking merit and opportunity? No, being a banker's son doesn't predestine you to being more skillful. You should already have enough counterexamples to demonstrate that fact. Your comment is borderline bewildering. It's like corruption and nepotism don't exist.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]