Have you ever given thought to what equal opportunity* for everyone would result in?
* equal as in starting position and outside factors for everyone being exactly the same.
I bet it would result it inequality being far worse than it is today.
Wal-mart asks its underpaid workers to donate food to other underpaid workers
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
* equal as in starting position and outside factors for everyone being exactly the same.
I bet it would result it inequality being far worse than it is today.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
How so?
Because with all outside factors removed, how well people do would really only depend upon those people themselves. And it really shouldn't come as surprise that people aren't equally intelligent, industrious or disciplined.
People who are homeless today are those who have fallen through the cracks of the safety net society has set up for them. In this case, there would not even a safety net in the first place.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Wait, I'm confused: how are you getting from "equality of opportunity" to Battle Royale?
Because that's what it is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity
I guess it is easy to forget that based on their own efforts, some people would, unavoidably, also fail.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
That still doesn't imply asociality. What ever gave you that idea?
Yes, it would lead to inequality. Not only through different levels of potential, but because the entire system requires inequality to function. There'd still be a moral need for some type of welfare.
Now, I am more concerned about the looming automation-induced unemployment than many people are, but I think we'll need a rethinking of how "the rising tide raises all boats" is going to work. I mean, that's the social contract.
Now, I am more concerned about the looming automation-induced unemployment than many people are, but I think we'll need a rethinking of how "the rising tide raises all boats" is going to work. I mean, that's the social contract.
As in "lack of a strong motivation to engage in social interaction, or the preference for solitary activities"? Not sure I understand the question.
EDIT: Thank you, El Mach.
Yes, we need welfare, and we need safety nets and of course those born poor are at a disadvantage and should be helped.
But at the same time, pretending that inequality and relative poverty are "products of the system" and all would be great if everybody just had "equal opportunity" is stupid. Just as decrying everyone who tries to bring the question of personal responsibility into the picture.
Unless you want to go terribly far.
Like: "Sure, that guy is poor because he is a substance-abusing imbecile who never worked a day in his life. But he is like that because his mother never saw a sober day throughout her pregnancy and his whole extended family never worked a day either, so he suffers from both FAS and lack of positive role-models... so it is really his fault?" Then you might have a point. Kinda. But where does that take us?
EDIT 2: Just to preempt possible misunderstandings: the above portrait is meant to be most extreme of possible examples, not a sum-up-portrait of poor in general.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
You seem to be assuming that "equality of opportunity" necessarily means everybody being left to their own devices, if not from birth, then certainly from adolescence. That would be an equality, but that doesn't mean it exhausts the possibilities for equality. Even before you get into the distinction between formal and substantive equality, it's plainly possible to provide people with a very generous starting place without introducing any sort of inequality.
There would still be inequality. But it would certainly be less inequality than what exists now. Because now it is very difficult for a competent and hardworking person who starts near the bottom to rise towards the top, and even more difficult for a useless and lazy person who starts near the top to fall towards the bottom. The system protects the incompetent at the top from the competent at the bottom. Remove that, put in equality of opportunity, and many more people would be much better off over time.
Woah. Good word choice, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think that relative poverty are inherent to the system. You cannot have property and capital without a resulting increase in relative inequality. BUT, absolute poverty actually needn't exist if the society (in aggregate) becomes wealthy enough. Now, capitalism has promised the 'rising tide raising all boats', but we can see that this is commonly no longer true. But, the social promise still exists.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
You mean the "safety net" with the quite deliberate 40 foot holes? This so-called "safety net" may exist in your country and most every other country which claims to be humanitarian, but it certainly doesn't exist in this one.
Spoiler :
This is the essence of it, perfectly stated.
If poverty in the US is nothing more than the result of poor people making poor decisions then that automatically implies that wealthy people made smart decisions. But that can't be the case, because most of the current wealthy's wealth wasn't generated from scratch in a single generation - they inherited a large fraction of it, upon which more was built. Same thing with poverty - most poor people are born into poor families. That's entirely outside of their control, and they shouldn't be penalized for being born that way. I also think wealthy people shouldn't be rewarded for simply having the good luck of being born to a wealthy family. But then again I'm a "radical lefty"
If this "poverty is your own damn fault" premise were true, we should expect that other countries would see larger inequality problems, since USA#! is the land of most opportunity. We should expect to see more poor people in the USA#! being able to bootstrap themselves into the middle class than elsewhere. We should also expect to see more wealthy people falling down into the middle class (or further) as a result of their poor decisions.
Spoiler :
Source: http://www.verisi.com/resources/prosperity-upward-mobility.htm
EDIT: for a really interesting aspect of this, click the source and set the data comparison to look at daughters instead of sons.
Oh my! Why is it that mobility in the US is so much worse than in Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, the UK -- even Ireland?!
How is it possible that the poor people in those countries aren't making nearly as many bad decisions as poor people here? What are they doing differently, I wonder
Are there enough willing teenagers seeking some spending money to go around for such positions? When I run across an incompetent or inattentive cashier, odds are that the person is a teenager motivated by extra cash rather than an older person trying to put food on the table.
Well they're not really getting rewarded, genes of people who inherit wealth are being bred out of the population.
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,613
Not to mention the chronic issue of these businesses where those in charge of the employees on their shift tend to be draconian, unreasonable, or just simply irresponsible. Teenagers are young and require a ton of guidance when it comes to finding their rhythm in a workplace, and most managers/supervisors are more concerned with numbers and expectations which I imagine is a result of upper management not knowing what it's like on the ground floor.
It's impossible to have an efficient and satisfying work environment that is composed of teenagers unless those in charge of the place are invested in educating, disciplining, and guiding those teenagers. The best retail stores or fast food joints I've ever gone to had senior members that weren't in a management position because they were working right beside the young people and understood that your first couple years of working are often a mess and, if you're left out to dry, you're going to be a pretty bad employee.
If someone is going to be intent on these being "teenager-only" jobs, they have effectively turned the positions into skilled labour right there which requires people who have a family to feed. Even a job that just requires routine can be overwhelming for a young individual who has no idea what they're doing 90% of the time in life and in the workplace. A teenager focus requires legitimate guidance and education from older employees.
~Corsair#01~
Deity
The honest answer to that question lies in the cultural/racial homogeneity of these places.
In most of Europe, the middle classes (ie. the ones who hold the balance of political power) don't see the poor as being a foreign "other" in the same way that white middle class Americans do.
Poverty is associated with race in America to a very large degree, and so the question of providing opportunities for everyone to live a decent life has been morphed into a sort of "us vs them" ethnic war where "real hard-working Americans" are pitted against the "urban poor" in a zero-sum struggle for supremacy.
Wouldn't it be more accurate then to say that it's not racial homogeneity that helps the other nations but rather racial tensions that hurt the USA#1 poor?
Your position as stated means that other countries - being less diverse - don't have this problem, but they would if they were more diverse. In other words, the problem is the result of diversity and how the US responds to it.
I've heard this before and I'm not sure I buy it, but I'm willing to be convinced if you try.
Your position as stated means that other countries - being less diverse - don't have this problem, but they would if they were more diverse. In other words, the problem is the result of diversity and how the US responds to it.
I've heard this before and I'm not sure I buy it, but I'm willing to be convinced if you try.
