Inequality much worse than most think

[lektrode]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

+1
couldnt have said it better!
and i still think that The BoogeyMan is in the beltway and NOTHING eye have seen to date,
here nor elsewhere - could convince me otherwise.

the old 'liberal vs conservative' POV needs to be changed too.

its now become the "science of gov knows best" - and all we need is a few more trillion of (somebody else money) and another 10000pages of legal gobbledeegoop and "we can fix everything..."

vs "too much gov spending/interference/corruption" coupled with an entrenched political aristocracy/buracracy that is strangling the golden goose

It's interesting how so many discussions here and on other sites boil down to the same basic disagreement: one side thinks that the rich/oligarchs/corporations/etc are thieves who have rigged things so that average people can't get ahead, and the other side thinks that anyone can maximize their potential if they have the right attitudes and work hard. It's interesting to me how hard the folks on the pessimistic side of this argument will work to hold on to their belief that you can't lift yourself up by your bootstraps, that it's all about connections, that the rich won't let you get rich unless you're in their club. It's so defeatist. I think it's a belief held by people who have given up, so they make themselves feel better by telling themselves that there's no way to succeed anyway.

By any historical standard, simply by living in the west in the 21st century you have all of the opportunity you could possibly need. But instead of looking for ways to improve their skills or ideas for solving problems for other people in new ways, these people who have given up bitterly cling to their conviction that there's no use in trying because the super-rich will never let you succeed, that the only way you really get rich is by being born rich.

It's really an argument that is rooted in people's emotional personalities: optimists versus pessimists would be an (over-)simple way of expressing it. And neither side is going to convince the other, because we don't believe what we believe for factual reasons but because it makes us feel good emotionally.

I hope I never reach the point where I think it is essentially impossible to do what I want in life, including getting rich, because I wasn't born rich. It is that defeatist attitude that irritates me when I read those sorts of comments. And I am sure that my optimism irritates the pessimists just as much.

Kind of a pointless discussion in terms of coming to some agreement. But I guess we all get something out of it by rehashing the same pro- and anti-wealth arguments over and over.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

It's interesting how so many discussions here and on other sites boil down to the same basic disagreement: one side thinks that the rich/oligarchs/corporations/etc are thieves who have rigged things so that average people can't get ahead, and the other side thinks that anyone can maximize their potential if they have the right attitudes and work hard. It's interesting to me how hard the folks on the pessimistic side of this argument will work to hold on to their belief that you can't lift yourself up by your bootstraps, that it's all about connections, that the rich won't let you get rich unless you're in their club. It's so defeatist. I think it's a belief held by people who have given up, so they make themselves feel better by telling themselves that there's no way to succeed anyway.

By any historical standard, simply by living in the west in the 21st century you have all of the opportunity you could possibly need. But instead of looking for ways to improve their skills or ideas for solving problems for other people in new ways, these people who have given up bitterly cling to their conviction that there's no use in trying because the super-rich will never let you succeed, that the only way you really get rich is by being born rich.

It's really an argument that is rooted in people's emotional personalities: optimists versus pessimists would be an (over-)simple way of expressing it. And neither side is going to convince the other, because we don't believe what we believe for factual reasons but because it makes us feel good emotionally.

I hope I never reach the point where I think it is essentially impossible to do what I want in life, including getting rich, because I wasn't born rich. It is that defeatist attitude that irritates me when I read those sorts of comments. And I am sure that my optimism irritates the pessimists just as much.

Kind of a pointless discussion in terms of coming to some agreement. But I guess we all get something out of it by rehashing the same pro- and anti-wealth arguments over and over.

Mark, it seems you have missed the mark. I don't think anyone here is "being a defeatist" we simply have come to terms with reality. There is a large difference between being a pessimist and a realist. Unforunately most people can't distinguish between the two.

I have not given up but I am a realist. (Again it is not about "money" or getting "rich" for me personally) I realize that I have friends who are no more intelligent than I or even less so that get fantastic positions due simply to the ability to get into and out of an ivy league school (or who had parents who focused on their education etc to help get them there).

My GF sees this all the time at her work. The people who are fast tracked to manager/director aren't the best but the ones who are tied/associated with someone higher up who probably got their position not by skill.

One girl who calls the CEO "a friend" because they both go to synagogue together went from being an analyst straight to manager skipping years of work.

The fact remains that a majority of people can succeed at a majority of jobs (aside from the most specialized jobs that is) if they are given the opportunity but 99% simply aren't due to ethnicity/university/religious or political affiliation etc.

It is a hard world for a realist someone who refuses to buy into the propaganda that every organization or political party expouses. The Real Estate agent who doesnt buy into the Rah Rah Rah propaganda of Keller Williams at their annual meetings will never be "seen" as a "good soldier" for the firm.

I have actually been told by a large investment bank that I would have to be a "good soldier" and "fall in line" at the bank if I worked there even though that person knew I was unconventional and believe that groups automatically create by their very nature an opposition group and must be diametrically opposed to the "anti" of their ideas/beliefs.

I do not choose to play the game.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

It's interesting how so many discussions here and on other sites boil down to the same basic disagreement: one side thinks that the rich/oligarchs/corporations/etc are thieves who have rigged things so that average people can't get ahead, and the other side thinks that anyone can maximize their potential if they have the right attitudes and work hard. It's interesting to me how hard the folks on the pessimistic side of this argument will work to hold on to their belief that you can't lift yourself up by your bootstraps, that it's all about connections, that the rich won't let you get rich unless you're in their club. It's so defeatist. I think it's a belief held by people who have given up, so they make themselves feel better by telling themselves that there's no way to succeed anyway.

By any historical standard, simply by living in the west in the 21st century you have all of the opportunity you could possibly need. But instead of looking for ways to improve their skills or ideas for solving problems for other people in new ways, these people who have given up bitterly cling to their conviction that there's no use in trying because the super-rich will never let you succeed, that the only way you really get rich is by being born rich.

It's really an argument that is rooted in people's emotional personalities: optimists versus pessimists would be an (over-)simple way of expressing it. And neither side is going to convince the other, because we don't believe what we believe for factual reasons but because it makes us feel good emotionally.

I hope I never reach the point where I think it is essentially impossible to do what I want in life, including getting rich, because I wasn't born rich. It is that defeatist attitude that irritates me when I read those sorts of comments. And I am sure that my optimism irritates the pessimists just as much.

Kind of a pointless discussion in terms of coming to some agreement. But I guess we all get something out of it by rehashing the same pro- and anti-wealth arguments over and over.

I am not sure what is to be gained by entering a discussion heavily embedded in the context? There is no real dichotomy. If one were to discuss the merits of the color of a car ,and it became a point of contention, there is no reason to assume either side of the argument does not primarily view that the transportation aspect of it is the primary feature. Some benefits are to be had by self motivation and ability. Some require social cooperation. Any novel on war and romance fits this model of making the best of circumstances that perhaps ought not to be. I don't think a healthy attitude can completely solve cancer anymore than a rainy day should become an excuse. Thus my position it to reject idealism entirely. As one example, I freely have remorse for what has occurred with the commotization and adulteration of typical American food stuffs. Yet I can make something akin to a chocolate silk pie from the landscape of a our local police department , make pizza from the woods , meaning the impact on me is far less than anyone else. Yet food of mine is on occasion mowed or cut down. So on the other hand what can be had of my effort when the collective society decides even useful native plants are to be mowed? I am an operator yes, but there is always the conditions of operation. That is the position of my very empirical and pragmatic approach to life. I pay little heed to both thoughtlessness and thoughts with little tangible result.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Mark, it seems you have missed the mark. I don't think anyone here is "being a defeatist" we simply have come to terms with reality. There is a large difference between being a pessimist and a realist. Unforunately most people can't distinguish between the two.

Ah, you are a rejected mulatto of idealsim like myself, often despised as heartless by the left and labled a statist because I don't making rolling stops at the stop sign, revealing too much obeisance to authority and social good.



Should Adam Smith be abandoned as a hero of the right for this sort of fatalism?

China has been long one of the richest, that is, one of the most fertile, best cultivated, most industrious, and most populous countries in the world.*25 It seems, however, to have been long stationary. Marco Polo, who visited it more than five hundred years ago,*26 describes its cultivation, industry, and populousness, almost in the same terms in which they are described by travellers in the present times. It had perhaps, even long before his time, acquired that full complement of riches which the nature of its laws and institutions permits it to acquire. The accounts of all travellers, inconsistent in many other respects, agree in the low wages of labour, and in the difficulty which a labourer finds in bringing up a family in China. If by digging the ground a whole day he can get what will purchase a small quantity of rice in the evening, he is contented. The condition of artificers is, if possible, still worse. Instead of waiting indolently in their work-houses, for the calls of their customers, as in Europe, they are continually running about the streets with the tools of their respective trades, offering their service, and as it were begging employment.*27 The poverty of the lower ranks of people in China far surpasses that of the most beggarly nations in Europe. In the neighbourhood of Canton many hundred, it is commonly said, many thousand families have no habitation on the land, but live constantly in little fishing boats upon the rivers and canals. The subsistence which they find there is so scanty that they are eager to fish up the nastiest garbage thrown overboard from any European ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though half putrid and stinking, is as welcome to them as the most wholesome food to the people of other countries. Marriage is encouraged in China, not by the profitableness of children, but by the liberty of destroying them. In all great towns several are every night exposed in the street, or drowned like puppies in the water. The performance of this horrid office is even said to be the avowed business by which some people earn their subsistence.*28

Should he have been rejected by the left for his analysis that the capitalist was that most likely to corrupt the society?



No wonder the Gypsies thought he was one of theirs, an outcast. Adam Smith was a pragmatist , but his carcass was picked to serve idealism, his choice, sumptuous loin cuts to serve the propaganda of free market by the right, while the left proved that a meager soup was made from his bleached bones. Sure, a shave and a hair cut for a song anywhere; on a sinking ship before the hour of our doom ; or at our commencement. Make the best of it with a market.

I believe his is ours . Had we pragmatists been allowed to perform the appropriate ritual of his afterlife he would have been of some use. . Instead his bones serve as idolatrous and superstitious symbols in every corner of the land.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Mark, it seems you have missed the mark. I don't think anyone here is "being a defeatist" we simply have come to terms with reality. There is a large difference between being a pessimist and a realist. Unforunately most people can't distinguish between the two.

After I hit the button on that post, I considered going back to add the observation that the people I was calling pessimists probably see themselves as realists. They will think it is realistic to believe there's no way for the workin' man to get ahead.

And then I thought, no matter what I write, someone will find some phrase to pick on, will focus on some minor exception to what I've said rather than respond to the spirit of what I'm saying. And it made me feel tired thinking about it. It's so hard to communicate when we take turns responding emotionally to some tone of voice or word choice the other guy makes and ignore the larger point he is trying to make. But that's pretty much what people do. I do it too. So I decided not to bother editing the post.

I have not given up but I am a realist. (Again it is not about "money" or getting "rich" for me personally) I realize that I have friends who are no more intelligent than I or even less so that get fantastic positions due simply to the ability to get into and out of an ivy league school (or who had parents who focused on their education etc to help get them there).

My GF sees this all the time at her work. The people who are fast tracked to manager/director aren't the best but the ones who are tied/associated with someone higher up who probably got their position not by skill.

One girl who calls the CEO "a friend" because they both go to synagogue together went from being an analyst straight to manager skipping years of work.

The fact remains that a majority of people can succeed at a majority of jobs (aside from the most specialized jobs that is) if they are given the opportunity but 99% simply aren't due to ethnicity/university/religious or political affiliation etc.

It is a hard world for a realist someone who refuses to buy into the propaganda that every organization or political party expouses. The Real Estate agent who doesnt buy into the Rah Rah Rah propaganda of Keller Williams at their annual meetings will never be "seen" as a "good soldier" for the firm.

I have actually been told by a large investment bank that I would have to be a "good soldier" and "fall in line" at the bank if I worked there even though that person knew I was unconventional and believe that groups automatically create by their very nature an opposition group and must be diametrically opposed to the "anti" of their ideas/beliefs.

I do not choose to play the game.

In the spirit of responding to the spirit of what you are saying, yes, I agree that it would be a nicer world if we never had to be phonies in order to fit in. I think everyone hates that. And yes, connections matter.

But that's just life, just the way people are. It doesn't mean you can't get ahead anyway.

Consider the case of black professional sports stars. If there was a field more closed to blacks than white professional athletics back in the day, I think it would be hard to find it. A field dominated by good ol' boys who I'm pretty sure were not the liberal type. You can bet that blacks had NO connections in that world.

Yet blacks were brought into that world by white team owners because they could just plain play better than the white competition. Competence spoke louder than connections. Even the most racist good ol' boy sports team owner was, in practical terms, forced to hire the best talent available if he was going to field a competitive team. And now blacks dominate several professional sports.

Maybe a point of disagreement here is this: some seem to be saying that it's *harder* for the workin' man to make it than it is for the son of a CEO. OK, agreed. So what? Who says it should be equally easy for everyone? Parents are going to look out for their children and ease their way. If you are the child of poor parents then you aren't going to have that. I suppose by some people's reckoning, that is an injustice. But that CEO who decided to have children and help them wasn't doing it to spite the poor person. That CEO had no control over whether the poor person decided to have children, children that they could hardly afford to feed. Where is it written that when you are in the economically poorest strata, you have a right to bring children into this world AND expect them to have the same advantages as the children of someone wealthy? The simple fact that you can copulate and bring sperm and egg together means that the product of your sexual union is entitled to have rich people taxed so that they are paying for both the opportunities for their own children AND the social costs of the children of the poor? Who gives the poor the right to foist their children, who they can't provide for propertly, on society? Where's the fairness there?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Maybe a point of disagreement here is this: some seem to be saying that it's *harder* for the workin' man to make it than it is for the son of a CEO. OK, agreed. So what? Who says it should be equally easy for everyone?

The point is equality of opportunity. And if you go back and read my Thomas Jefferson quote here, you'll get the gist of why it has been an important American ideal since the founding of the nation. Equality of outcome may be Marxist. But Equality of Opportunity is American, and Social Darwinism was for the old world Monarchies. The very thing that separated America from the old world since day one was the concept that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights by their Creator. Fighting for this principle is not pessimistic, socialistic, or anything else you want to label it. It is the only red-blooded American thing to do.

These are political issues. All economic issues ultimately are when you peel the skin back. The ideal of a world that rewards merit instead of birthright is at the center of the American Experiment. I will not give it up so easily, nor would I turn my back on this ideal if it meant that I or my children would end up on the Forbes 400 list in exchange. You seem to be desiring to make this political position a personal gripe. What you see as personal sour grapes, I see as an essential fight in the long, endless battle to form a more perfect union and healthy republic. Money be damned.

[DSpencer]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Maybe a point of disagreement here is this: some seem to be saying that it's *harder* for the workin' man to make it than it is for the son of a CEO. OK, agreed. So what? Who says it should be equally easy for everyone? Parents are going to look out for their children and ease their way. If you are the child of poor parents then you aren't going to have that. I suppose by some people's reckoning, that is an injustice. But that CEO who decided to have children and help them wasn't doing it to spite the poor person. That CEO had no control over whether the poor person decided to have children, children that they could hardly afford to feed. Where is it written that when you are in the economically poorest strata, you have a right to bring children into this world AND expect them to have the same advantages as the children of someone wealthy? The simple fact that you can copulate and bring sperm and egg together means that the product of your sexual union is entitled to have rich people taxed so that they are paying for both the opportunities for their own children AND the social costs of the children of the poor? Who gives the poor the right to foist their children, who they can't provide for propertly, on society? Where's the fairness there?

Lots of people want "equality of opportunity" but I'm not sure exactly what that means. Financially? Genetically? Environmentally?

How can any two people have equality of opportunity if they are born with different skills/personalities and raised by different people? How could it be mandated that I have an equal opportunity to play in the NBA as a person who's 6'10"?

[DSpencer]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

The point is equality of opportunity. And if you go back and read my Thomas Jefferson quote here, you'll get the gist of why it has been an important American ideal since the founding of the nation. Equality of outcome may be Marxist. But Equality of Opportunity is American, and Social Darwinism was for the old world Monarchies. The very thing that separated America from the old world since day one was the concept that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights by their Creator. Fighting for this principle is not pessimistic, socialistic, or anything else you want to label it. It is the only red-blooded American thing to do.

These are political issues. All economic issues ultimately are when you peel the skin back. The ideal of a world that rewards merit instead of birthright is at the center of the American Experiment. I will not give it up so easily, nor would I turn my back on this ideal if it meant that I or my children would end up on the Forbes 400 list in exchange. You seem to be desiring to make this political position a personal gripe. What you see as personal sour grapes, I see as an essential fight in the long, endless battle to form a more perfect union and healthy republic. Money be damned.

Out of curiosity, do you support affirmative action?

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

After I hit the button on that post, I considered going back to add the observation that the people I was calling pessimists probably see themselves as realists. They will think it is realistic to believe there's no way for the workin' man to get ahead.

And then I thought, no matter what I write, someone will find some phrase to pick on, will focus on some minor exception to what I've said rather than respond to the spirit of what I'm saying. And it made me feel tired thinking about it. It's so hard to communicate when we take turns responding emotionally to some tone of voice or word choice the other guy makes and ignore the larger point he is trying to make. But that's pretty much what people do. I do it too. So I decided not to bother editing the post.



In the spirit of responding to the spirit of what you are saying, yes, I agree that it would be a nicer world if we never had to be phonies in order to fit in. I think everyone hates that. And yes, connections matter.

But that's just life, just the way people are. It doesn't mean you can't get ahead anyway.

Consider the case of black professional sports stars. If there was a field more closed to blacks than white professional athletics back in the day, I think it would be hard to find it. A field dominated by good ol' boys who I'm pretty sure were not the liberal type. You can bet that blacks had NO connections in that world.

Yet blacks were brought into that world by white team owners because they could just plain play better than the white competition. Competence spoke louder than connections. Even the most racist good ol' boy sports team owner was, in practical terms, forced to hire the best talent available if he was going to field a competitive team. And now blacks dominate several professional sports.

Maybe a point of disagreement here is this: some seem to be saying that it's *harder* for the workin' man to make it than it is for the son of a CEO. OK, agreed. So what? Who says it should be equally easy for everyone? Parents are going to look out for their children and ease their way. If you are the child of poor parents then you aren't going to have that. I suppose by some people's reckoning, that is an injustice. But that CEO who decided to have children and help them wasn't doing it to spite the poor person. That CEO had no control over whether the poor person decided to have children, children that they could hardly afford to feed. Where is it written that when you are in the economically poorest strata, you have a right to bring children into this world AND expect them to have the same advantages as the children of someone wealthy? The simple fact that you can copulate and bring sperm and egg together means that the product of your sexual union is entitled to have rich people taxed so that they are paying for both the opportunities for their own children AND the social costs of the children of the poor? Who gives the poor the right to foist their children, who they can't provide for propertly, on society? Where's the fairness there?

Please take note I am talking about averages below and in no way disparaging one ethnicity over another.

I really wouldnt bring up the black sports athletes. Althought a lot of "sports" is on merit a large portion is also on "racism or ethnocentrism" from both black and white. This is why no white guy is allowed to play running back because although they were a RB in high school that perhaps set state records they would be recruited and converted to a middle linebacker in college.

If you read any scouting report on a top LB or defensive end and he is white the verbage used is "he has a great motor and violent hands" but if you read about a black LB or DE it is "he is explosive with great power." I dont even have to look at the guys picture and will know whether he is white or black just by the description the so called "analysts" give.

There is a concerted effort of everyone in football, all the analysts and owners to obtain and promote a black QB because historically black players have not played QB. The same is true of black head coaches.

The powers at be will not be happy until 90% of the head coaches are black and 90% of the QBs are black. They even rank high school QBs in two different tiers the Dual Threat QB (top 100) and the "traditional QB" (top 100) instead of ranking them altogether.

The point is politics and race permeate all their decisions, perhaps because of white guilt (of what I dont know it is not like the whites who live today put anyone in slavery or even put laws into motion in the 40s/50s/60s to keep them out).

Russell Peters the comedien has half a show on how "the people of color have white people running around scared to point out color and walking on egg shells"

He tells a joke where a friend came to visit him at his show. The security guard called to say his friend came by to see him but had to leave. Peters ask, well who was it? The white security guard goes, oh I dont know he was maybe 6 foot athletic etc and Russells goes oh you mean my black friend XXXX? The security guard goes I dont know, he was 6 foot, athletic build etc" He refused to point out the guy was black.


Now the problem I have been getting at is Equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. Most people do not have the opportunity that a select few (relative) have.

On wall street there is a concerted effort to hire what they call URM or under represented minorities aka blacks and hispanics. Firms will jump through hoops to hire a qualified URM or so I am told.

The opposite is also true, the ORM or over represented minority aka indians and asians. When Harvard gets a CV of a prospective student and they have near perfect SAT scores plus play the violin or piano and the kid has an asian name well they see thousands of near identical applications. So like at UC Berkley there is a cap on the amount of ORMs allowed in. Is it fair to them Mn_Mark?

Back in the day if you were a German speaking jew and you started a company you only hired other German speaking jews. This is true of Phillips Brothers the physical commodity trading firm started in the early 1900s now owned by Goldman I believe as PhiBro. The German speaking jews who founded the firm only hired other German speaking jews which is how the famous Marc Rich got his opportunity to succeed.

The same is true today of board members. For the most part if there are 11 accountants on the board and they need 1 more person there is a high liklehood they will promote another accountant to the board.

Now I ask you, where is the opportunity for the realist or pragmatist that doesnt force them to throw away their morals to get an "opportunity" to succeed?

One who is not affiliated with any religious organization or be apart of a certain ethnicity or political party?

A fellow Jewish friend of mine worked for Marriott (a mormon company) as a manager of new builds. He was told by his boss a female that he would never get promoted because all the other positions ahead of him will be filled by women. He left the company and is now at Cornell getting his MBA for this very reason.

He asked me once why he wasnt getting ahead at work. I in turn asked him, do you go to synagogue? (i already knew didnt) His response was no.

I said that is why you are not getting ahead. Jews dont go to synagogue for prayer they go to make business deals. (said as a joke he cracked up laughing). And also because you are jewish at a mormon company, why would you ever think you would get a significant director position?

This is the fact of life, sad but true.

I ask again, where is the opportunity for the realist or pragmatist (Mark, many people on these boards know me personally and none would characterize me as a pessimist I believe) for the person who doesnt affiliate with a political organization, ethnicity, religion or major university that is recognized?

Eventually time catches up with all of us and you are "too old" to get that entry level position at an investment bank or hedge fund.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Lots of people want "equality of opportunity" but I'm not sure exactly what that means. Financially? Genetically? Environmentally?

How can any two people have equality of opportunity if they are born with different skills/personalities and raised by different people? How could it be mandated that I have an equal opportunity to play in the NBA as a person who's 6'10"?

Spencer, not everyone wants to play in the NBA or even be a manager. Most are perfectly content at their analyst position or admin position and happy with taking care of their family/kids.

But where is the equality of opportunity for the people who are actually striving and putting in what mark called boot strapped hardwork to get ahead?

My assumption is that carig has tried bootstrapping and hardwork to get ahead much more than his fellow man and hasnt because he hasnt been "granted" an opportunity to do so.

I am telling you now the HF managers I meet on a regular basis are no more intelligent than I am and in most cases don't understand anything outside of fundamental credit or equity analysis yet I am not allowed to work at their fund because I dont have the "right" pedigree to be let in and given an opportunity.

These are the people I am talking about and I can imagine there are more than a couple hundred million worldwide who try and are never given an opportunity then "life" happens and they never get another chance.

Obviously not everyone can be a CEO or basketball player etc. But take the case of Tom Brady the Pats QB. He was the worst athlete at the QB position ever evaluated. He was measured on everything you can measure an athlete and just couldnt pass muster.

He was drafted number 199 overall in the 6th round. The Patriots knew he was good and really was probably better than Bledsoe but they couldnt start a rookie over the veteran. He worked his tail off to know the playbook and prepare to run the team when given his opportunity to play.

The following year Bledsoe got injured and they inserted Brady. He never let go of the position, won 3 super bowls and has been to 5. Imagine if he was never given the opportunity to play in a real NFL game and only in practice?

I imagine there are thousands of guys who can play QB in the NFL yet are never given a chance to actually play in a game aside from practice. There is a major difference between game pressure and the intangibles and practice. Some guys look fantastic in practice but get in a real NFL game and cant succeed.

Opportunity matters. I may fail in my future hopeful opportunity that I am working toward but at least I get a chance to see if I can do it or not. The problem is I may never be given an opportunity just like the thousands of QBs who can play better at the NFL level but were never given a chance.

[Forrest]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Lots of people want "equality of opportunity" but I'm not sure exactly what that means. Financially? Genetically? Environmentally?

How can any two people have equality of opportunity if they are born with different skills/personalities and raised by different people? How could it be mandated that I have an equal opportunity to play in the NBA as a person who's 6'10"?

Much of this thread is not about equality of education, or opportunity so much as it is about a guaranteed equal outcome. Such outcomes don't exist.

One might as well turn over your personal identity, and your gene structure, and your home and educational environment to become androids...everyone fixed so that they can all have the same everything.

Presuming anyone is idiotic enough to attempt so bland a living environment as equal outcome, you would find the majority of people so bored that they are dredged in feel good drugs and video games...

Uh oh...isn't that what we are trending towards?

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Lots of people want "equality of opportunity" but I'm not sure exactly what that means. Financially? Genetically? Environmentally?

How can any two people have equality of opportunity if they are born with different skills/personalities and raised by different people? How could it be mandated that I have an equal opportunity to play in the NBA as a person who's 6'10"?

I thought it was always pretty clear, but the application is specific to the role of society, not the equal distribution of rain clouds. The problem is many of these social forces are hidden from plane sight. This is one of the few places I do not have to expose and explain the FIRE sector which retains assets do to social forces. Lockean land ownership was based on real fixtures created by labor and the right to live. Now its quietly become a government enforced privilege akin to planting a flag in the name of England where one clearly does not need to live there.

[DSpencer]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Spencer, not everyone wants to play in the NBA or even be a manager. Most are perfectly content at their analyst position or admin position and happy with taking care of their family/kids.

But where is the equality of opportunity for the people who are actually striving and putting in what mark called boot strapped hardwork to get ahead?

My point was just how do we define opportunity and how can it possible be made equal. Does having 2 dedicated parents who teach you to read from an early age give you different opportunity than someone with a deadbeat dad and drug addict mom? If you are born with an IQ of 150 does that give the same equality of opportunity as someone with an IQ of 70?

I'm not simply asking rhetorical questions, I'm sincerely try to determine what people mean when they say this.

As to the second part, the fact that you meet with HF managers on a regular basis implies a level of opportunity not available to 99% of the world. Do you REALLY want everyone on earth to have the same opportunity as you even if it means lessening your own opportunity substantially?

Imagine how a struggling person in a 3rd world country would feel hearing a (relatively) rich American complain that they don't have enough opportunity to get ahead.

[DSpencer]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I thought it was always pretty clear, but the application is specific to the role of society, not the equal distribution of rain clouds. The problem is many of these social forces are hidden from plane sight. This is one of the few places I do not have to expose and explain the FIRE sector which retains assets do to social forces. Lockean land ownership was based on real fixtures created by labor and the right to live. Now its quietly become a government enforced privilege akin to planting a flag in the name of England where one clearly does not need to live there.

Well it's still not clear to me. The concept of equality under the law is much more clear and seems clearly desirable. If only we would stick to it.

[reggie]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

The coming "Information" inequality will significantly dwarf any "economic" inequality we've experienced. And all those entrepreneurs are selling their incredibly valuable network assets for paper currencies. Yup, genius.