"not everyone accepts that inequality is ipso facto bad."
Does anybody actually believe that inequality of outcome is "ipso facto bad" ? If so, what is the argument? I can easily understand arguments for equality of treatment (impartial rules), but who actually believes people should have equal outcomes when they obviously have wildly differing goals and capabilities?
For example most poor people in the US come from single parent households, and many of their (mostly) moms don’t even work. Why would anyone expect them to make as much as double income full time workers? I know you aren’t suggesting we force these moms to marry and work full time.
Don't ignore the GI Bill after World War II. A huge number of bright poor kids were able to get college educations and become part of the educated work force. It may have been racially and sexually unbalanced, but it demonstrated that the US was not developing its available talent.
- i think inequality probably makes sense as an "ecosystem health" metric; instead of fixing it via taxes and transfers alone, i think you're right that what you _really_ want to fix is the opportunities available
- i think we should be investing in children the way we invest in startups; the way startups work, most go bust, but a few 'unicorns' make up for the cost of investing in all the others. I think some people really do have far more potential than others, and that a person's ability to reach their potential is hindered by the stability and safety of their childhood environment. This means any kid growing up in poverty is a tremendous waste of opportunity
"not everyone accepts that inequality is ipso facto bad."
Does anybody actually believe that inequality of outcome is "ipso facto bad" ? If so, what is the argument? I can easily understand arguments for equality of treatment (impartial rules), but who actually believes people should have equal outcomes when they obviously have wildly differing goals and capabilities?
For example most poor people in the US come from single parent households, and many of their (mostly) moms don’t even work. Why would anyone expect them to make as much as double income full time workers? I know you aren’t suggesting we force these moms to marry and work full time.
Don't ignore the GI Bill after World War II. A huge number of bright poor kids were able to get college educations and become part of the educated work force. It may have been racially and sexually unbalanced, but it demonstrated that the US was not developing its available talent.
I like this! Just a few points to add:
- i think inequality probably makes sense as an "ecosystem health" metric; instead of fixing it via taxes and transfers alone, i think you're right that what you _really_ want to fix is the opportunities available
- i think we should be investing in children the way we invest in startups; the way startups work, most go bust, but a few 'unicorns' make up for the cost of investing in all the others. I think some people really do have far more potential than others, and that a person's ability to reach their potential is hindered by the stability and safety of their childhood environment. This means any kid growing up in poverty is a tremendous waste of opportunity