Equality of opportunity..?

[Denter]

I don't know if I'd say the free market specifically, but society in general in many cases. It's a very difficult question, because you don't want someone to have essentially no chance to make it in life because they're the child of a crack addicted prostitute, but you also don't want Harrison Bergeron. Clearly society has made the judgement that some leveling of the playing field is justified (public schools are essentially a way of taking resources from one group, i.e. taxpayers and distributing it across a broader group, in this case children in general), but we struggle with things like universal pre-K, public funding of universities, etc. It's not a simple issue, though personally I think we should probably do more to invest in young people in general and spend less money maintaining the elderly and military.

We can't, they show up to vote.

 

[panamaican]

Yes, there are many examples, but inheritance is one.

And experiences vary. Personally, my parents were lower-middle-class, but my maternal grandparents were very wealthy (and, yes, my parents deliberately chose to not take the easy path and do something they believed was socially useful). I had a very uncomfortable meeting with my grandpa before he passed, where he explained his whole plan. I'm 35 so whatever, but I have cousins who are minors in the same boat who have the same amount going to them, and my nana is in her 80s. My cousins won't be set for life, but they'll be able to buy a nice house, a nice car, and to finish college with no debt, which will tremendous wind at their backs.

As for my grandparents, they didn't give their kids money, but they pay for their schooling--all the way from good private schools to terminal degrees--and made equity investments in their kids' businesses--two of which turned out to be great investments. They also let them live in some really nice properties for way below-market rent. That's basically my plan for my own daughter, minus the essentially subsidized rent.

Inheritance is an advantage. Sure but it's an advantage of outcomes not one of opportunity. That's all I'm saying.

My parents were poor immigrants who became wealthy through hard work and the glorious advantages America has over Central America and the West Indies. The advantages that they pass along are far more useful while they're alive than the value of any inheritance (although that will pretty much mirror your grandfather - places to live rent-free, paid education for generations coming down the line, etc.). My wife comes from a similar background (except her parents aren't immigrants, they still live overseas although they have properties here too).

But most of those advantages arise from how the wealthy choose to spend their money. It doesn't have to be inheritance, it can be a trust or some other wealth transfer vehicle. And that's why reducing it is more about reducing inequalities in outcomes, not opportunities. People who became wealthy can spend their money to give advantages to whomever/whatever they want (sport teams, college they attended, etc.). Reducing the amount of money they can spend after death is about limiting the reach of their life's outcomes.

 

[James Keith]

Inheritance is an advantage. Sure but it's an advantage of outcomes not one of opportunity. That's all I'm saying.

My parents were poor immigrants who became wealthy through hard work and the glorious advantages America has over Central America and the West Indies. The advantages that they pass along are far more useful while they're alive than the value of any inheritance (although that will pretty much mirror your grandfather - places to live rent-free, paid education for generations coming down the line, etc.). My wife comes from a similar background (except her parents aren't immigrants, they still live overseas although they have properties here too).

But most of those advantages arise from how the wealthy choose to spend their money. It doesn't have to be inheritance, it can be a trust or some other wealth transfer vehicle. And that's why reducing it is more about reducing inequalities in outcomes, not opportunities. People who became wealthy can spend their money to give advantages to whomever/whatever they want (sport teams, college they attended, etc.). Reducing the amount of money they can spend after death is about limiting the reach of their life's outcomes.

Only like one percent of the population will receive a significant inheritance. A parent willing to bankroll their career to a comparable level goes in the same category. To even discuss that topic is to argue on the leftists' terms. That is a sideshow not the basis for our economy. To get anywhere with a startup for example requires well up in the six figures. Very few people will get that level of support form their parents. And unless you have significantly more you're probably a fool for risking essentially your house on the idea of some crazy kid (i.e. yourself).

Colleges are obviously a non-argument since every state has a public school and open admisison system.

As for k-12, the strawman seems to be that mythical entity proposing continuation of the status quo when it comes to shit inner city schools. Obviously no one is proposing this. One side wants one kind of radical remedy and the other side wants another, also radical, so again it's a bs argument.

Either way pushing your kid to do their homework and learn their lessons will have far greater impact on outcomes than bankrolling their forays into art majors and Overpriced U.

 

[OldGoat]

Yes, there are many examples, but inheritance is one.

And experiences vary. Personally, my parents were lower-middle-class, but my maternal grandparents were very wealthy (and, yes, my parents deliberately chose to not take the easy path and do something they believed was socially useful). I had a very uncomfortable meeting with my grandpa before he passed, where he explained his whole plan. I'm 35 so whatever, but I have cousins who are minors in the same boat who have the same amount going to them, and my nana is in her 80s. My cousins won't be set for life, but they'll be able to buy a nice house, a nice car, and to finish college with no debt, which will tremendous wind at their backs.

As for my grandparents, they didn't give their kids money, but they pay for their schooling--all the way from good private schools to terminal degrees--and made equity investments in their kids' businesses--two of which turned out to be great investments. They also let them live in some really nice properties for way below-market rent. That's basically my plan for my own daughter, minus the essentially subsidized rent.

Why was the conversation uncomfortable? Was it because it was adult topics such as planning for ones family?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Only like one percent of the population will receive a significant inheritance. A parent willing to bankroll their career to a comparable level goes in the same category. To even discuss that topic is to argue on the leftists' terms. That is a sideshow not the basis for our economy. To get anywhere with a startup for example requires well up in the six figures. Very few people will get that level of support form their parents. And unless you have significantly more you're probably a fool for risking essentially your house on the idea of some crazy kid (i.e. yourself).

Colleges are obviously a non-argument since every state has a public school and open admisison system.

As for k-12, the strawman seems to be that mythical entity proposing continuation of the status quo when it comes to shit inner city schools. Obviously no one is proposing this. One side wants one kind of radical remedy and the other side wants another, also radical, so again it's a bs argument.

Either way pushing your kid to do their homework and learn their lessons will have far greater impact on outcomes than bankrolling their forays into art majors and Overpriced U.

Do you support public universities and community colleges?

 

[James Keith]

Do you support public universities and community colleges?

Sure just not via involuntary taxation.

I would be happy to donate to them under a different system. Just as I would support the poor and sick. And support basic research I approve of. Actually like I already do in all cases.

Do you know that only about half the UC system's funds come from the state? Cut that out and you still have half this massive system left.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Sure just not via involuntary taxation.

I would be happy to donate to them under a different system. Just as I would support the poor and sick. And support basic research I approve of. Actually like I already do in all cases.

Do you know that only about half the UC system's funds come from the state? Cut that out and you still have half this massive system left.

So no. Public means through involuntary (is there any other kind?) taxation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So no. Public means through involuntary (is there any other kind?) taxation.

To me, the big question is "why would anyone want to live in the kind of society that these guys envision?" If people are free and have a say in how they're governed, they're not going to want a system where having an educated population with opportunities to advance are dependent on the charity of the rich.

 

[James Keith]

So no. Public means through involuntary (is there any other kind?) taxation.

And if I supported volunteer fire departments does that mean I oppose volunteer fire departments?

But yes I support a system of truly voluntary taxes whereby every citizen gets to choose at the beginning of each year what programs they wish to fund and in what amounts. It is best to keep it as local as possible though. And I would also support competition.

 

[James Keith]

To me, the big question is "why would anyone want to live in the kind of society that these guys envision?" If people are free and have a say in how they're governed, they're not going to want a system where having an educated population with opportunities to advance are dependent on the charity of the rich.

Whereas I just find it amusing that left wingers who claim to be so big on helping people, consider a system where people voluntarily help each other to be some kind of hell. Not everyone is as selfish and anti-social as you are. The most obvious explanation is that their real desire is to cut people down (i.e. eating the rich) not bring people up.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

And if I supported volunteer fire departments does that mean I oppose volunteer fire departments?

But yes I support a system of truly voluntary taxes whereby every citizen gets to choose at the beginning of each year what programs they wish to fund and in what amounts. It is best to keep it as local as possible though. And I would also support competition.

Not to get too sidetracked, my point was simply that it's redundant to call taxes "involuntary taxes". Being that taxes are by definition involuntary.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Whereas I just find it amusing that left wingers who claim to be so big on helping people, consider a system where people voluntarily help each other to be some kind of hell. Not everyone is as selfish and anti-social as you are. The most obvious explanation is that their real desire is to cut people down (i.e. eating the rich) not bring people up.

We tried it and it sucked. It's called the Gilded Age. People working 12-hours a day in sweatshops and coming home to slums.

 

[James Keith]

Not to get too sidetracked, my point was simply that it's redundant to call taxes "involuntary taxes". Being that taxes are by definition involuntary.

Fair enough though Harry Reid may have something to say about that.

We tried it and it sucked. It's called the Gilded Age. People working 12-hours a day in sweatshops and coming home to slums.

What sucked about those times (when by the way the US in all its suckage was a major immigant destination because you earned more here than in Europe) was that we were a developing country by today's standards. Not a fair comparison. The interconnected economy itself is a technology we had to learn. People aren't going to go back to individual craftsman, for example, to produce goods now that we know the benefits of scale.

It's just like presuming the US will have all the crappiness of an east african country if it adopts anarchist policies. Or that it will get really cold if we adopt scandinavian socailism.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

What sucked about those times (when by the way the US in all its suckage was a major immigant destination because you earned more here than in Europe) was that we were a developing country by today's standards. Not a fair comparison. The interconnected economy itself is a technology we had to learn. People aren't going to go back to individual craftsman, for example, to produce goods now that we know the benefits of scale.

It's just like presuming the US will have all the crappiness of an east african country if it adopts anarchist policies. Or that it will get really cold if we adopt scandinavian socailism.

Sure it's a fair comparison. Business owners fought tooth and nail against an 8-hour day and paying anything more than subsistence wages. Why wouldn't they do it now? Did our species evolve into homo-empatheticus in the last 100 years?

 

[James Keith]

Sure it's a fair comparison. Business owners fought tooth and nail against an 8-hour day and paying anything more than subsistence wages. Why wouldn't they do it now? Did our species evolve into homo-empatheticus in the last 100 years?

Minimum wage in this country is something like $9/hour. Let's call that $20/year to be generous.

Median income is more like $40k.

You explain the difference to me.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Minimum wage in this country is something like $9/hour. Let's call that $20/year to be generous.

Median income is more like $40k.

You explain the difference to me.

Right, minimum wage, which is an example of government intervention into the market. How much do you think workers performing unskilled labor would be earning if there was no MW? What benefits would they get?

There's no question we would be materially better off right now than 100 years ago even if there were no minimum wage laws, 8-hour day laws, Wagner Act, etc. But I also think there's no question that the majority of people would be worse off than they are right now. People would be working longer hours for less.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Whereas I just find it amusing that left wingers who claim to be so big on helping people, consider a system where people voluntarily help each other to be some kind of hell.

Is that an honest characterization of the discussion, in your view? A system where people voluntarily help each other is great. A system where the poor and middle class are completely at the mercy of the rich is not so great.

Not everyone is as selfish and anti-social as you are. The most obvious explanation is that their real desire is to cut people down (i.e. eating the rich) not bring people up.

The most obvious explanation for why some people support a social safety net, policy directed toward full employment, public education, etc. is that people want to eat the rich?! That makes sense to you? You sound mentally ill.

 

[James Keith]

Right, minimum wage, which is an example of government intervention into the market. How much do you think workers performing unskilled labor would be earning if there was no MW? What benefits would they get?

There's no question we would be materially better off right now than 100 years ago even if there were no minimum wage laws, 8-hour day laws, Wagner Act, etc. But I also think there's no question that the majority of people would be worse off than they are right now. People would be working longer hours for less.

I think you missed my point. Only a few percent of workers earn minimum wage. And your little analysis overlooks all those earning zero thanks to minimum wage laws, i.e. the unemployed.

Back to my point, why are employers paying vastly more than the minimum they are legally required to pay employees?

 

[James Keith]

Is that an honest characterization of the discussion, in your view? A system where people voluntarily help each other is great. A system where the poor and middle class are completely at the mercy of the rich is not so great.

Everything I say is both honest and accurate. You're welcome.

The most obvious explanation for why some people support a social safety net, policy directed toward full employment, public education, etc. is that people want to eat the rich?! That makes sense to you? You sound mentally ill.

It's small words for people like you. Note how you fixated on that parenthetical part boiling it down to vernacular.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I think you missed my point. Only a few percent of workers earn minimum wage. And your little analysis overlooks all those earning zero thanks to minimum wage laws, i.e. the unemployed.

Workers who are with a company for a certain period of time tend to get raises, which can explain why only a small portion (almost 5% http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130325.htm) of the workforce earns MW. MW makes the starting point for workers $7.25 an hour instead of $4 an hour (or however low employers could get people to work for).

BTW if MW had kept pace with inflation over the last 40 years a lot of workers right now would be earning below minimum wage.

Back to my point, why are employers paying vastly more than the minimum they are legally required to pay employees?

Supply and demand.