Equality of opportunity..?

[panamaican]

I don't know. I see conservatives express a desire for equal opportunity, and I ask, "OK, what should we do to get it? More aid to pay for higher education? Public preschools? A focus on improving public schools? Nutritional aid for poor children? Higher inheritance taxes?" And generally, they oppose all of those things. It seems that "equality of opportunity" is just used by conservatives as an excuse to oppose anything that might help the poor or middle class.

I don't think that's a fair assessment.

I think many conservatives have a short memory and don't know why those things are battling inequality of opportunity (of course some of the things on your pretend list don't counteract inequality of opportunity but inequality of results - specifically the inheritance tax). Of course, some know why but simply don't care, for whatever reason, but I believe they are the minority.

The differences of opinion arise because people start combining genuine lack of opportunity due to government factors, past and/or present, with inequalities that arises from legitimate differences in outcome.

 

[Bay Area]

It's pointless when you can't see the entire picture. Inequality exists in all aspects of society. That's why women have so readily accepted plastic surgery in our society. When looking at the economic situation we should play by the same rules as everything else- fuck government intervention and allow capitalism to dictate the winners and losers rather than the current system we have in place which government chooses the winners and losers while maintaining a rigged casino on Wall Street.

Yeah but when capitalism gets to the point where the poor in the inner cities need miracles from God in order to rise out of their current slum situations (there are studies that show poor kids in inner cities have a near impossible obstacle of rising out of poverty. Don't ask me to source those studies. I am too lazy at the moment. A quick Google search will bring them up), then this is a conversation we need to have. Out of all of the things you listed (too ugly to get pussy, too short etc),inequality of oportunity is the most important and pressing. Aint America supposed to be about anyone being able to make it out of poverty? But when we have the rich influencing Washington, and hoarding money, and creating an exlusive 1% club, then this is a problem. And it requires Government intervention in my opinion.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't think that's a fair assessment.

I think many conservatives have a short memory and don't know why those things are battling inequality of opportunity (of course some of the things on your pretend list don't counteract inequality of opportunity but inequality of results - specifically the inheritance tax). Of course, some know why but simply don't care, for whatever reason, but I believe they are the minority.

Of course an inheritance tax counteracts inequality of opportunity. If I inherit $10 million, and you inherit debt, do you really think we have an equal opportunity to succeed?

 

[Captain Davis]

This is the key part of what you are saying here. And I know alot of conservatives that feel the same way. But it doesn't seem to mean the same thing to liberals as it does to conservatives.

Something gets lost in the translation.

Agreed.

As I was taught growing up, life ain't fair.

You have to make the most of what you have, whether its intelligence, talent, or neither. Its up to the individual to utilize what they have and create opportunities for success. It may or may not be easier for some, but it doesn't make it impossible, one must have ambition to succeed.

 

[kpt018]

Doesn't it seem more unfair and worse for society that those of us with 140-plus IQs wouldn't have the opportunity to make the most of our gifts?

I think the ideal type of equality of opportunity is that everyone should have an equal opportunity to go as far as their ability and efforts can take them. Everyone who is willing to work at it and capable of benefitting from it should have access to an elite education, for example.

As I've said before, I think the idea is uniquely liberal--opposed by the right and the far left on different grounds.

Outstanding post.

I think most of us agree that a brain surgeon should make MUCH more than a janitor. Where many disagree, at least on the "how", is that the janitor's kids should have the same opportunity to succeed as the surgeon's kids. At least to the extent success is based on individual merit.

 

[Captain Davis]

Yeah but when capitalism gets to the point where the poor in the inner cities need miracles from God in order to rise out of their current slum situations (there are studies that show poor kids in inner cities have a near impossible obstacle of rising out of poverty. Don't ask me to source those studies. I am too lazy at the moment. A quick Google search will bring them up), then this is a conversation we need to have. Out of all of the things you listed (too ugly to get pussy, too short etc),inequality of oportunity is the most important and pressing. Aint America supposed to be about anyone being able to make it out of poverty? But when we have the rich influencing Washington, and hoarding money, and creating an exlusive 1% club, then this is a problem. And it requires Government intervention in my opinion.

Excuses don't make anyone successful. I might agree with you if all I did was research facts and figures on the internet, but I've known people who came from shit and made something of themselves. Playing the blame game doesn't work.

 

[Bay Area]

Not really.


You can't fight inequality in the free market because you can't fight that there are core differences between people.

This sounds well and good on paper. But the reality is the free market is rigged to benefit the few, core differences aside. This "rigging" is what needs to be fought. Its the extreme Free Market that has brought us to this current 1% / 99% paradigm

 

[ChainFlow]

Excuses don't make anyone successful. I might agree with you if all I did was research facts and figures on the internet, but I've known people who came from shit and made something of themselves. Playing the blame game doesn't work.

So because it's possible, however unlikely... Screw everyone else?

Do you know what statistics are? How exceptions don't disprove general rules?

Do you have any idea how many people failed to escape who would have done great with a middle class suburban upbringing?

 

[Captain Davis]

Of course an inheritance tax counteracts inequality of opportunity. If I inherit $10 million, and you inherit debt, do you really think we have an equal opportunity to succeed?

How often does that happen though, Jack? Hey, some people are just lucky, that's the way it is. Feeling sorry for yourself isnt going to change that. The government won't change it either, they are too concerned with padding their own pockets.

 

[Captain Davis]

So because it's possible, however unlikely... Screw everyone else?

Do you know what statistics are? How exceptions don't disprove general rules?

Do you have any idea how many people failed to escape who would have done great with a middle class suburban upbringing?

So, if you are poor, sitting around crying about it and waiting on the government to save you is the answer? There is no perfect answer, there will always be rich and poor people. Some wish to overcome their obstacles, others wallow in their situation. Like I said, if I had never seen these changes, I might agree, but its up to the individual to take responsibility for his own actions.

 

[kpt018]

How often does that happen though, Jack? Hey, some people are just lucky, that's the way it is. Feeling sorry for yourself isnt going to change that. The government won't change it either, they are too concerned with padding their own pockets.

Who's saying "feeling sorry for yourself"? What liberals want are programs that increase equality of opportunity. It makes zero sense to provide further incentives for the people who inherit $10m and remove programs that help the people inheriting debt.

It's not about feeling sorry for yourself, it's about doing something about it. You know, for the sake of everyone. That's another point that should be made. It is not about being a bleeding heart liberal, although, we certainly do seem to show more compassion. It's about improving the entire economy, for everyone, not just rich folks.

 

[Captain Davis]

Who's saying "feeling sorry for yourself"? What liberals want are programs that increase equality of opportunity. It makes zero sense to provide further incentives for the people who inherit $10m and remove programs that help the people inheriting debt.

It's not about feeling sorry for yourself, it's about doing something about it. You know, for the sake of everyone. That's another point that should be made. It is not about being a bleeding heart liberal, although, we certainly do seem to show more compassion. It's about improving the entire economy, for everyone, not just rich folks.

Even with those programs, you have to want to change. I have plenty of compassion, but I have no sympathy for anyone looking for a handout.

 

[kpt018]

Even with those programs, you have to want to change. I have plenty of compassion, but I have no sympathy for anyone looking for a handout.

I don't think anyone is arguing against that point.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Outstanding post.

I think most of us agree that a brain surgeon should make MUCH more than a janitor. Where many disagree, at least on the "how", is that the janitor's kids should have the same opportunity to succeed as the surgeon's kids. At least to the extent success is based on individual merit.

Not to circle jerk here, but that's a good way to put it--that the surgeon should make a lot more than the janitor, but their kids should have the same chance to succeed given equal talents. I think it's an impossible ideal and that we shouldn't do *everything* that can be done to ensure it, but we should do more than we are.

How often does that happen though, Jack? Hey, some people are just lucky, that's the way it is. Feeling sorry for yourself isnt going to change that. The government won't change it either, they are too concerned with padding their own pockets.

Really, on an individual level, I would totally recommend that people do the best they can with what they have. I don't know why you'd think anyone would disagree with that. This discussion is about policy objectives, which is something very different. It seems that the right has severe trouble keeping emotion out of policy debates.

 

[Bay Area]

So, if you are poor, sitting around crying about it and waiting on the government to save you is the answer? There is no perfect answer, there will always be rich and poor people. Some wish to overcome their obstacles, others wallow in their situation. Like I said, if I had never seen these changes, I might agree, but its up to the individual to take responsibility for his own actions.

You missed his point. 1 or two people doing it does not prove anything when there are 50 million people living in poverty. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/11/06/243498168/how-many-americans-live-in-poverty. How many of those have tried to start business, attend colleges? How many are working 4 jobs, and going to school and raising kids at the same time? Are they all lazy excuse makers? Are they all sitting around and "crying"? I know you are not a stats an figures guy, and like to belive your own eyes, but stats, figures and charts and shit are what we used to paint pictures. And the picture shows that its fucked up more than ever for the poor, and that upward mobility oportunity is rapidly disapearing. The poor aren't whining...they have a legitimate beef.

 

[ChainFlow]

So, if you are poor, sitting around crying about it and waiting on the government to save you is the answer? There is no perfect answer, there will always be rich and poor people. Some wish to overcome their obstacles, others wallow in their situation. Like I said, if I had never seen these changes, I might agree, but its up to the individual to take responsibility for his own actions.

You don't seem to understand how your personal experiences have no bearing on policy which has to affect the lives of hundreds of millions.

Your two success stories out of probably thousands upon thousands of people you've met in your life should just reinforce the absurdity of your position.

Society is losing millions of great minds that will never be given the chance to run a successful enterprise, be part of a research team, serve as a medical specialist, etc. due to no fault of their own.

This is a huge waste of potential and resources that would benefit the entire nation.

Your hatred for the poor is blinding you.

 

[Bay Area]

Even with those programs, you have to want to change. I have plenty of compassion, but I have no sympathy for anyone looking for a handout.

I would say the majority of the people in poverty want change, and want a bettter life for themselves and especially their kids, and would do it in a heartbeat if the right programs were in place. Living in the projects with crack dealers and gangbangers isn't fun you know. The desire to rise is there, don't you worry.

 

[OldGoat]

Who's saying "feeling sorry for yourself"? What liberals want are programs that increase equality of opportunity. It makes zero sense to provide further incentives for the people who inherit $10m and remove programs that help the people inheriting debt.

It's not about feeling sorry for yourself, it's about doing something about it. You know, for the sake of everyone. That's another point that should be made. It is not about being a bleeding heart liberal, although, we certainly do seem to show more compassion. It's about improving the entire economy, for everyone, not just rich folks.

You don't inherit debt. Unless its debt your tax dollars are paying to reduce gubmint debt. You guys can't be that clueless about personal finance.

 

[OldGoat]

Not to circle jerk here, but that's a good way to put it--that the surgeon should make a lot more than the janitor, but their kids should have the same chance to succeed given equal talents. I think it's an impossible ideal and that we shouldn't do *everything* that can be done to ensure it, but we should do more than we are.



Really, on an individual level, I would totally recommend that people do the best they can with what they have. I don't know why you'd think anyone would disagree with that. This discussion is about policy objectives, which is something very different. It seems that the right has severe trouble keeping emotion out of policy debates.

Same caliber public schools and access to necessities in childhood like nutrition and medical care, yes.

 

[Captain Davis]

I would say the majority of the people in poverty want change, and want a bettter life for themselves and especially their kids, and would do it in a heartbeat if the right programs were in place. Living in the projects with crack dealers and gangbangers isn't fun you know. The desire to rise is there, don't you worry.

I don't know man. Maybe, but many in the projects are perfectly comfortable the way they are. I see the same people living there year after year. I know I only have my little slice of heaven to pull experience from, but its difficult to ignore it when its right in front of you. My eyes have been opened to other peoples point of view more since I've hung around here, but it hasn't changed my core beliefs.

I believe a culture has to change. I'll be all for a program that pushes to better education, awareness, self reliance, helping to prepare people for better jobs, helping with job interviews, teaching skills, motivational coaches, etc., but I will never get behing any program that just sends out a check. That provides zero motivation, plus it breeds a society that will bend over backward to keep the freebies coming.

I'm for arming people with skills and motivation, not checks that weren't earned.