4 ms·

>But I suppose it's easy (but lazy) to make a moral play of this. Lazier than assuming that because by chance you were born in a particular country you're some

>But I suppose it's easy (but lazy) to make a moral play of this. Lazier than assuming that because by chance you were born in a particular country you're somehow entitled to get paid more per unit work than people born in other countries?

humanrebar 11y ago
> by chance you were born in a particular country It's not chance that I was born in a country with world-class freedoms, infrastructure, and and wealth. Previous generations of Americans made decisions, many good and many bad, that resulted in the current state of America. I would argue that it's mostly fair for Americans to expect that their children, friends, and neighbors reap the benefits of their ingenuity and sacrifice. I also think Americans should be exceptionally generous (I think they could do a log better), but to believe that everyone just rolled the dice so many decades ago and current Americans just happened to end up on top is to have a real nihilistic approach to history, governance, and culture. To put it another way, people make sacrifices now to benefit future generations. I'd argue that it's lazy to ignore the influence of history on current affairs.
- logicchains 11y ago
  >I also think Americans should be exceptionally generous (I think they could do a log better), but to believe that everyone just rolled the dice so many decades ago and current Americans just happened to end up on top is to have a real nihilistic approach to history, governance, and culture. For the record I wasn't implying that the wealth of nations is due to chance. I just meant roll of the dice in that, if there are N babies being born in a given moment, and K of those births are in a well-off country, then a given baby has a K/N chance of being born in a well-off country. Which country it's born in is not the result of any decisions on the baby's part, although I suppose as you point out it could be a result of decisions made by its parents. >I would argue that it's mostly fair for Americans to expect that their children, friends, and neighbors reap the benefits of their ingenuity and sacrifice. According to Forbes[1], 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children, and if one assumes those companies are a net benefit to America then immigration isn't necessarily a zero-sum game. 1. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-per...
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    Except baby souls don't come from a giant Pez dispenser in the sky. The chance that you would be born to someone other than your parents are zero. And your parents made decisions that affected your life. It's a short hop to extrapolate that to the community, city, province, and country you were born in.
    - grinnbearit 11y ago
      Its less about the chance to be born and more about the fault of being born. This is a moral preference issue and so we can have different views. Take a less contentious example, good looking people are often thought of as better than their uglier (but equally skilled) colleagues.[1] This is a human cognitive bias, and it takes constant effort to correct for it. So the question is, would you prefer a world where the halo effect didn't exist? And since it does exist, would you be averse to compensating ugly people for their misfortune. Do you think because they were born ugly they "deserve" to be treated worse/have less opportunities than their prettier counterparts. Do you think their parents are to blame instead? Should we disincentivise ugly people from having their own children? After all, pretty people have been selecting each other for generations in order to have prettier kids. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect
RobertoG 11y ago
Maybe I didn't explain myself properly. Lazy is to think that it's not human nature to try to defend whatever material progress they have. Lazy is to argue that the market will solve everything. That the problem is going to be solved leaving workers to compete when, it's obvious that, without a determined effort to end poverty around the world, there is always going to be a limitless source of desperate people. Lazy is to think that a race to the bottom is not the end game of the current system.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- logicchains 11y ago
  >without a determined effort to end poverty around the world, there is always to be a limitless source of desperate people. Is this necessarily the case? Average global wages have been increasing steadily, especially in developing countries, so if the current trajectory continues then eventually a stage will be reached where everyone has a "first world" income, even if that takes another hundred years.

humanrebar 11y ago

> by chance you were born in a particular country It's not chance that I was born in a country with world-class freedoms, infrastructure, and and wealth. Previous generations of Americans made decisions, many good and many bad, that resulted in the current state of America. I would argue that it's mostly fair for Americans to expect that their children, friends, and neighbors reap the benefits of their ingenuity and sacrifice. I also think Americans should be exceptionally generous (I think they could do a log better), but to believe that everyone just rolled the dice so many decades ago and current Americans just happened to end up on top is to have a real nihilistic approach to history, governance, and culture. To put it another way, people make sacrifices now to benefit future generations. I'd argue that it's lazy to ignore the influence of history on current affairs.

logicchains 11y ago
>I also think Americans should be exceptionally generous (I think they could do a log better), but to believe that everyone just rolled the dice so many decades ago and current Americans just happened to end up on top is to have a real nihilistic approach to history, governance, and culture. For the record I wasn't implying that the wealth of nations is due to chance. I just meant roll of the dice in that, if there are N babies being born in a given moment, and K of those births are in a well-off country, then a given baby has a K/N chance of being born in a well-off country. Which country it's born in is not the result of any decisions on the baby's part, although I suppose as you point out it could be a result of decisions made by its parents. >I would argue that it's mostly fair for Americans to expect that their children, friends, and neighbors reap the benefits of their ingenuity and sacrifice. According to Forbes[1], 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children, and if one assumes those companies are a net benefit to America then immigration isn't necessarily a zero-sum game. 1. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-per...
- humanrebar 11y ago
  Except baby souls don't come from a giant Pez dispenser in the sky. The chance that you would be born to someone other than your parents are zero. And your parents made decisions that affected your life. It's a short hop to extrapolate that to the community, city, province, and country you were born in.
  - grinnbearit 11y ago
    Its less about the chance to be born and more about the fault of being born. This is a moral preference issue and so we can have different views. Take a less contentious example, good looking people are often thought of as better than their uglier (but equally skilled) colleagues.[1] This is a human cognitive bias, and it takes constant effort to correct for it. So the question is, would you prefer a world where the halo effect didn't exist? And since it does exist, would you be averse to compensating ugly people for their misfortune. Do you think because they were born ugly they "deserve" to be treated worse/have less opportunities than their prettier counterparts. Do you think their parents are to blame instead? Should we disincentivise ugly people from having their own children? After all, pretty people have been selecting each other for generations in order to have prettier kids. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

RobertoG 11y ago

Maybe I didn't explain myself properly. Lazy is to think that it's not human nature to try to defend whatever material progress they have. Lazy is to argue that the market will solve everything. That the problem is going to be solved leaving workers to compete when, it's obvious that, without a determined effort to end poverty around the world, there is always going to be a limitless source of desperate people. Lazy is to think that a race to the bottom is not the end game of the current system.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
logicchains 11y ago
>without a determined effort to end poverty around the world, there is always to be a limitless source of desperate people. Is this necessarily the case? Average global wages have been increasing steadily, especially in developing countries, so if the current trajectory continues then eventually a stage will be reached where everyone has a "first world" income, even if that takes another hundred years.