“There is always inequality in life. Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded and some men never leave the country. Life is unfair.” --John F. Kennedy
Unfortunately, the economy does not behave like a fluid, and a rising economy raises the wealthiest boats orders of magnitude higher than middle-class boats, and thousands of times higher than the poorest boats, which rise imperceptibly by comparison.
Really? Say you're working for a company that has a great year, profits up 50%. Your boss gets a 20% raise. You and your team get coupons for free fries at McDonald's. As your boss hands out the coupons, he assures you that profit is a good thing, even if it helps management more than workers.
No, I'm pointing out that the wealthy take a bigger cut of economic growth not because they contributed more, but simply because they are in a position of power to do so. We can't leave capitalism unregulated and expect a meritocracy to emerge spontaneously.
Do you think trickle-down maybe works for technology? The iPad I am typing on in New Zealand, communicating with the world. How many people in the world have a smart phone and access to fantastic public information on the internet?
Or is trickle-down working for the majority of people around the world that have moved out of extreme poverty? In 1990 36% of the world lived in extreme poverty. In 2015 that had dropped to 10%. Is that trickle-down?
The ultra-wealthy are obscenely richer, but that doesn’t mean that the poor are not better off too.
I agree with your sentiment: trickle-down doesn’t feel like it is working in New Zealand, but I’m unsure how much of the feeling is based on fact versus envy.
No, I don't think trickle-down theory is working for anyone except the propagandists who propose it as anything less than a plain insult to people with less. Are you actually suggesting that Reagonomics was not an outright fraud?
> Corrupting this process by discriminating on the basis of family ties, personal friendships, wealth, race, or gender, is simply cutting your nose to spite your face.
Right. This is the precise argument in favor of diversity: that we have, for centuries now, been discriminating on the basis of race and selecting inferior performers over better choices because they were white, or male. The purpose of social justice is to bring us closer to meritocracy.
>Social justice teaches us how to distribute the pie fairly, so that no one is left behind.
No. The purpose of social justice is to ensure equal opportunity, not equality per se.
> No. The purpose of social justice is to ensure equal opportunity, not equality per se.
Who is the authority on the 'purpose' of social justice? Or is what you state just your opinion?
Perhaps this is just the circles I am around, but there has been increasing insistence on 'equity' by those who purport to be championing social justice. With 'equity' being exclusively determined by looking at distributions of outcomes, not opportunities.
>Who is the authority on the 'purpose' of social justice? Or is what you state just your opinion?
This is a good question, but I would defer to liberal leadership, and their rhetoric consistently refers to equal opportunity. I think a lot of people rely on conservative commentary on "what liberals think" rather than simply reading the original sources. Equity refers to equality of opportunity. See, eg, the official White House executive order regarding racial equity:
"Equal opportunity" is literally the first two words of the very first section.
You can't ignore outcomes as a useful metric, of course, but the objective is clearly equal opportunity, which will ultimately generate more balanced outcomes naturally.
> which will ultimately generate more balanced outcomes naturally.
On what do you base this MASSIVE assumption?
On the one hand, people who advocate for diversity say that our differences are our strengths. These differences are apparently important enough that workplaces do better with more diversity.
But on the other hand, these groups of people who are quite different are expected to just have equal outcomes, for whatever reason.
I think maybe you're confused by the definition of equality here. We're not talking about absolute equality of outcomes for everyone. We're talking about equality of outcomes between people of equal ability. For example, if two people of equal ability, one black, one white, have equal opportunity throughout their lives, we would expect that on average they'd end up with roughly equivalent outcomes. (Note that the fact that one can imagine some benign circumstance where that doesn't happen doesn't change the expectation---it's a statistical expectation over the entire population.)
> This is the precise argument in favor of diversity: that we have, for centuries now, been discriminating on the basis of race and selecting inferior performers over better choices because they were white, or male.
If people who believed this could actually present a shred of evidence that it is true, then a lot of people would be a lot more receptive to these ideas.
We can look back to the 70s when black americans were legally prohibited from certain jobs. Or prohibited from from owning property in most areas.
In the 80s we have plenty of lawsuits demonstrating the black americans were routinely denied home loans because they were black.
Most of the Ivy League colleges denied entry to black americans no matter the quality of their character. This racism remains entrenched, and leaves a lasting legacy of bias through legacy admissions, formalized hereditary entrance: the original positive discrimination.
The legacy admissions also provide the formal evidence of the original claim: people who's admission to a good school has nothing to do with their skill, merely being white allowing their family to have attended any school.
Ok you have provided zero evidence of anything happening today, the best you had is 40 years ago, and that one was false.
>In the 80s we have plenty of lawsuits demonstrating the black Americans were routinely denied home loans because they were black
This has been proven statistically false. Easily proven because if it were true, the black people that were accepted for home loans would have lower default rates than whites. In fact, they had exactly the same default rates as whites and when laws were introduced to force banks to accept more blacks, the default rate increased above whites. Proving race was never considered, just the chance of repaying the load.
Anyway, since you are only talking about history, lets put it into historical context.
Racism was pushed heavily by the big government socialists and the intellectual elite who called themselves "the progressive movement" for a very long time in the US, and was opposed by the Republican party, who thought everyone should be treated equally, for just as long.
One can't help but notice, it is exactly the same people, and with exactly the same economic and collectivist ideas who are pushing the exact same racist policies today, like affirmative action against Asians, for example. The same people who have always been responsible for the problem saying "we are now solving racism with more racism" doesn't impressive me much. To accept this I would need some evidence that today's world, with the new ideas that everyone should be treated equally regardless of their race, is not working.
Evidence which you have not provided.
>The legacy admissions also provide the formal evidence of the original claim: people who's admission to a good school has nothing to do with their skill, merely being white allowing their family to have attended any school.
This ended with the introduction of standardized testing. A policy that is now being challenged by people who follow your ideology.
Meritocracies are both unfair and inconvenient, but that's not the "point"; the point is rather that assigning responsibility based on competence ought to lead to better social outcomes across the board. To the extent that this fails, there would be no "point" to an actual meritocracy, either.
28 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 64.0 ms ] threadThat doesn't mean you get to maintain old biases, and continue to deliberately discriminate against women, PoC, etc.
Some unfairness is unavoidable, but using the idea that some is unavoidable to to justify maintaining biases is bullshit.
Otherwise we might as well go back to segregated schools, and red lining, after all life is unfair
Or is trickle-down working for the majority of people around the world that have moved out of extreme poverty? In 1990 36% of the world lived in extreme poverty. In 2015 that had dropped to 10%. Is that trickle-down?
The ultra-wealthy are obscenely richer, but that doesn’t mean that the poor are not better off too.
I agree with your sentiment: trickle-down doesn’t feel like it is working in New Zealand, but I’m unsure how much of the feeling is based on fact versus envy.
The meaning of that word seems to vary depending on a speaker's intent and underlying beliefs about humanity.
Right. This is the precise argument in favor of diversity: that we have, for centuries now, been discriminating on the basis of race and selecting inferior performers over better choices because they were white, or male. The purpose of social justice is to bring us closer to meritocracy.
>Social justice teaches us how to distribute the pie fairly, so that no one is left behind.
No. The purpose of social justice is to ensure equal opportunity, not equality per se.
Who is the authority on the 'purpose' of social justice? Or is what you state just your opinion?
Perhaps this is just the circles I am around, but there has been increasing insistence on 'equity' by those who purport to be championing social justice. With 'equity' being exclusively determined by looking at distributions of outcomes, not opportunities.
This is a good question, but I would defer to liberal leadership, and their rhetoric consistently refers to equal opportunity. I think a lot of people rely on conservative commentary on "what liberals think" rather than simply reading the original sources. Equity refers to equality of opportunity. See, eg, the official White House executive order regarding racial equity:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
"Equal opportunity" is literally the first two words of the very first section.
You can't ignore outcomes as a useful metric, of course, but the objective is clearly equal opportunity, which will ultimately generate more balanced outcomes naturally.
On what do you base this MASSIVE assumption?
On the one hand, people who advocate for diversity say that our differences are our strengths. These differences are apparently important enough that workplaces do better with more diversity.
But on the other hand, these groups of people who are quite different are expected to just have equal outcomes, for whatever reason.
How does that make any damn sense?
If people who believed this could actually present a shred of evidence that it is true, then a lot of people would be a lot more receptive to these ideas.
We can look back to the 70s when black americans were legally prohibited from certain jobs. Or prohibited from from owning property in most areas.
In the 80s we have plenty of lawsuits demonstrating the black americans were routinely denied home loans because they were black.
Most of the Ivy League colleges denied entry to black americans no matter the quality of their character. This racism remains entrenched, and leaves a lasting legacy of bias through legacy admissions, formalized hereditary entrance: the original positive discrimination.
The legacy admissions also provide the formal evidence of the original claim: people who's admission to a good school has nothing to do with their skill, merely being white allowing their family to have attended any school.
>In the 80s we have plenty of lawsuits demonstrating the black Americans were routinely denied home loans because they were black
This has been proven statistically false. Easily proven because if it were true, the black people that were accepted for home loans would have lower default rates than whites. In fact, they had exactly the same default rates as whites and when laws were introduced to force banks to accept more blacks, the default rate increased above whites. Proving race was never considered, just the chance of repaying the load.
Anyway, since you are only talking about history, lets put it into historical context.
Racism was pushed heavily by the big government socialists and the intellectual elite who called themselves "the progressive movement" for a very long time in the US, and was opposed by the Republican party, who thought everyone should be treated equally, for just as long.
One can't help but notice, it is exactly the same people, and with exactly the same economic and collectivist ideas who are pushing the exact same racist policies today, like affirmative action against Asians, for example. The same people who have always been responsible for the problem saying "we are now solving racism with more racism" doesn't impressive me much. To accept this I would need some evidence that today's world, with the new ideas that everyone should be treated equally regardless of their race, is not working.
Evidence which you have not provided.
>The legacy admissions also provide the formal evidence of the original claim: people who's admission to a good school has nothing to do with their skill, merely being white allowing their family to have attended any school.
This ended with the introduction of standardized testing. A policy that is now being challenged by people who follow your ideology.
I think what we're currently in is a period of Moneyball where we can do better.