Equality of opportunity.

Equality of opportunity. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DCWoody -> Equality of opportunity. (1/3/2010 10:53:18 PM)
A pretty solid base of liberal theory (as in real, not american liberal) is equality of opportunity (but not of outcome), people not being disadvantaged or advantaged by luck of birth. How do we square this with people wanting to provide for their children, both while alive and via inheritance....when any advantage they give their offspring is by definition at the collective expense of everybody else? As relatively high as the guaranteed minimum standard of living is via welfare in most civilized nations, how much higher can it realistically get, and how high would it need to be for people to be happy leaving their kids with nothing, to succeed or live at national minimum on their own? Is the concept of absolute 'equality of opportunity' worth holding on to in the modern world, does it matter as long as people aren't left to starve and success or failure is at least moderately related to ability and effort? Discuss... Examples for debate: Paris Hilton, Tom Jones, intelligent people whose families can't afford higher education, lazy scumbags living comfortably on welfare.

Arpig -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 1:05:44 AM)
quote: lazy scumbags living comfortably on welfare. I would like to point out that nobody lives "comfortably" on welfare. The welfare bum living high on the hog is a myth. Canada has more generous benefits than the US but even so the amount of money given is not enough to do anything more than survive at a subsistence level. In Ontario a single person on welfare gets about $560.00 a month, and rent on a bachelor apartment in Ottawa is $500 to $600 for a cheap one with no frills. You do the math...

Termyn8or -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 1:24:44 AM)
I am having a really hard time connecting what you put in there, but I will try. Let me start first by saying that I am not an egalitarian, and have never, do not and never will hold any illusion of equality in any way. We are not equal. I completely agree with the precept of equal opportunity but I doubt that is achievable either, try as we might. I am also not so sure that it warrants persuing to the nth degree because it would seemingly punish the achievers. Remember that no child left behind means no child moves ahead. This applies everywhere. This is the basic difference between the pure tenets of a republic/representative democracy and a socialist/communist system. Each according to his needs and each according to his abilities is not the law nor the spirit of the law here, it is a part of the socialist theme. This country was founded on the principles of self reliance, and therefore excellence which came from within. But what is within ? You get born into a rich family and get to go to the good schools, you might do well financially, but did you grow ? Did you learn ? Harvard and Yale are nothing but social clubs now. What was Obama's major ? What was Bush's major ? What was Clinton's major. And what were there GPAs ? And what were their adjusted GPAs ? There are schools out ther that if you manage to pull a 3.5 you are considered top have a 4. something. So now even that is relative. It will get as relative as it needs to be so that our leaders can look like educated people. Not one of them could taake one quarter at UWM unless they majored in basket weaving, and UWM does not have basket weaving courses. But what you say has alot more weight than that whether you know it or not. Advantages do not just include money and fancy schools. True education happens in the home, school was intended just to gain skills. Common sense is very uncommon. Whether you think the leaders of this country are oafs or traitors, a smart Man is neither. He will not abandon his followers and if a true leader would die for them. Nobody even comes close to that ideal. Why ? The only way to learn life is to be dirt poor. When I quit school and went to work I doubled the family income. I simply don't need to know if bumfucked Saskatchuan is 330 or 325 miles form some big blown up landmark, out of all proportion, to fulfill my intellectual needs. I think Tibet is north of China, but I really don't fucking care and it has absolutley no bearing on my life, except maybe for the price of tea. But the advantantage to which I think you refer is pretty much unmeasurable. Those first five years before the kid goes to school, and subsequently what happens after school, that is very hard to figure out. Just money doesn't cut it. It takes an effort by someone who is truly educated to really wants to educate another to get this done. There is no substitute. If you are stupid and you want your kids to be smart, get rid of them. Sounds harsh but if you don't have the mental wherewithall to do it, hand the job off to someone who can. The problem is that now you can't do what seems obvious. Leave them with teachers. I have seen the results, and teachers are of dubious quality and suspectable intelligence. I don't trust them, my Parents never did and I don't think my Granparents did either. I heard scores of words about stay in school, mind your teachers, if you drop out you will be on skid row. Now in my family they meant it. That meant I would be out on the street, that I couldn't go stay with Uncle Tom or Aunt Carole. These people were tough. They saw on TV about tough love and had a good laugh about it. What you saw on TV is nothing like my family. Not even close. They would let us freeze to death to make their fucking point, and we learned from that. Tough love my ass, there were times we wished they hated us. Advantages are a very hard thing to guage. A bunch of money means nothing. All these suits coming out of Harvard and Yale, sure, all kind of money, opportunity and all that. But did they learn ? Did they better themselves ? Are they really smarter now than the day they enrolled ? To each of these questions my answer is probably not. They met connections, went to toga parties, got high where they wouldn't be caught and figured out how to get richer. That's what happens there. There is another path. Parents are really educated and don't care about all this shit. They do their best to instill as much wisdon as possible in their progeny. If they are smart, their kid will have a serious head start on trhe rest of the world. They don't have to pay through the nose, the kid will pay what is needed, and it is not that much. How much is a library card ? Got a PC, got howstuffworks, wiki, google ? To someone who knows how to learn these are very effective tools. But I did it before the advent of these things. When I was a kid, you have to remember those days, I hated getting clothes for Christmas or birthdays. It was just too boring. But the other kids wanted toys, OK fine. I wanted books. I have been an avid reader since I was knee high to a fire hydrant. What is first and foremost that they instilled in me was the interest and curiousity to go find the knowledge which I seek. Or sought. All the money in the world cannot replace that. I am no0t a money grubbing politician or banker, I am a working Man, who when successful is a component of stopping the bleeding of wealth from this country. I do care and I prove it, despite the fact that I am heirless. Got any good ptrospects out there ? If everybody dies before me I'll probably be worth about a million bucks. But see that's not it. Without my influence that money would be squandered. I could support a professional student or a master basketweaver. This is not my goal and I figure the money will just go to my chosen family, for better or worse. Without the personal, dare I say it - intervention, no amount of money can make up for what the few have, intellect. It has to start early, and it has to stick. You can't allow distractions, even if that means moving out to the sticks and trying it that way, possibly even home schooling. So the point is, there are many types of advatage, which did you have in mind ? T

Fellow -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 1:39:23 AM)
Equal opportunity is BS slogan. There is no equal opportunity and there can not be. Sometimes employers put it on their job application forms for whatever reason. Affirmative action (unequal opportunity) is a different story.

CountrySong -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 2:16:55 AM)
Arpig I would like to point out that nobody lives "comfortably" on welfare. Wrong! You are only giving one part of the picture - welfare. I know several people who live quite comfortably on "welfare" (SSI or SSDI) of only $661 a month. But they get housing benefits - 2 bedroom that normally rents for $770 for $110 a month. Plus they get free medical. Then they get food stamps - $100 a month. They also get the food bank which in our area is fairly good. They also have access to free donations. (One lady I know has a home that when you walk into it looks like a Victorian Mansion. High quality oak furniture, fine china, and real silver silverware.) Plus they get side jobs which they often don't report because they trade services for things they want - like babysitting for a nice dinner and massage a week. Plus they get can go to several place for free due to programs we have here. All of that does not count the gifts from friends and family. Many also have special needs trusts that allow them to take vacations to places like hawaii and vegas. The reality for many of the people that I know who are on benefits is that they are on them because it is too expensive to work - they would loose all those benefits and they could not earn enough in most cases to replace the value of those benefits so why do it?

CountrySong -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 2:39:00 AM)
DCWoody A pretty solid base of liberal theory (as in real, not american liberal) is equality of opportunity (but not of outcome), people not being disadvantaged or advantaged by luck of birth. I think your theory of what equality of opportunity is is off. Disadvantaged or advantaged by luck of birth has very little to do with success in the United States and Canada. Knowledge, self disipline, personal responsibility, common sense, and work count more here. You can start out here with nothing and make yourself into a millionaire - I am. The problem is that most people don't want to take responsibility for their own lives - they want to be subbies and slaves and let others make the choices, seek all the knowledge, and do the work. They are happy enough with their 40 hour a week job so they make no real effort to change that. Oh sure they have financial fantasies - "I'm going to win the lottery or be discovered." Or the blame others - "Well I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth." The simple fact is that in The United States there are enough assets to provide every household with over a million dollar networth. If you want your share get off your butt and go get it. Stop trying to steal it from the people who have worked for it. DCWoody As relatively high as the guaranteed minimum standard of living is via welfare in most civilized nations, how much higher can it realistically get, and how high would it need to be for people to be happy leaving their kids with nothing, to succeed or live at national minimum on their own? Sorry but it will never happen. Leaving your kids with nothing goes against most human instincts, most of the faiths people in the United States follow, our personal desire to be remembered, and the male instinct to be good providers and the female instinct to look for that in a mate.

CountrySong -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 2:46:32 AM)
PS - as for being advantage by birth. The "millionair next door" books show that statistically people who are advantaged at birth - parents who became millionaires. Loose that advantage once they join the American school system and culture. The decendants of foriegn nationals who come to America and become millionaires fall below the millionaire mark within two generations. Sure someone like The Donald might have started out with a better advantage. (about $100 million when his dad died.) But he could have blown it all. Instead he sleeps about four hours a night and puts the rest of his energy into his businesses which is his passion.

SilverMark -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 3:01:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CountrySong Arpig I would like to point out that nobody lives "comfortably" on welfare. Wrong! You are only giving one part of the picture - welfare. I know several people who live quite comfortably on "welfare" (SSI or SSDI) of only $661 a month. But they get housing benefits - 2 bedroom that normally rents for $770 for $110 a month. Plus they get free medical. Then they get food stamps - $100 a month. They also get the food bank which in our area is fairly good. They also have access to free donations. (One lady I know has a home that when you walk into it looks like a Victorian Mansion. High quality oak furniture, fine china, and real silver silverware.) Plus they get side jobs which they often don't report because they trade services for things they want - like babysitting for a nice dinner and massage a week. Plus they get can go to several place for free due to programs we have here. All of that does not count the gifts from friends and family. Many also have special needs trusts that allow them to take vacations to places like hawaii and vegas. The reality for many of the people that I know who are on benefits is that they are on them because it is too expensive to work - they would loose all those benefits and they could not earn enough in most cases to replace the value of those benefits so why do it? I think that it would depend on your definition of "comfortable" and what it is you desire from life. Food stamps, government housing, and a welfare check would be less than comfortable to anyone that has had better. I would say your example is highly distorted based on one or two people who eith have no ambition or are extremely good at screwing the system. Perhaps a drive through your local project or an apartment complex that accepts section 8 money would give you a slighlyt different perspective.

CountrySong -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 3:45:18 AM)
SilverMark I think that it would depend on your definition of "comfortable" and what it is you desire from life. Food stamps, government housing, and a welfare check would be less than comfortable to anyone that has had better. I would say your example is highly distorted based on one or two people who eith have no ambition or are extremely good at screwing the system. Perhaps a drive through your local project or an apartment complex that accepts section 8 money would give you a slighlyt different perspective. Hi Mark - Sorry I'll have to disagree with you on that as I worked for several years as an aide to clients in public housing. So I lived in public housing and saw hundreds of people who did. Many of my friends live in public housing. I've also done dozens of "back to work" counselling for the disabled. The minimum income in my state is the highest in the nation at about $1,470 per month before taxes. If you figure a tax rate of 15% then you end up with $1250. Now add up the benefits they get - $661 tax free income, $670 housing, $100 food stamps, free medical, nearly free transportation on our bus system, etc. The simple truth is that most of the people I have worked with who are on disability would have to earn about twice the minimum wage to replace their benefits so they are much better off not to work. Right now I'm on disability due to an injury my income is actually below the minimum wage level. But I'm saving more and living better than I was when I was working a traditional job. I eat steak, crab, and lobster three or four times a week. I go to see movies and concerts once or twice a week. I travel and I have more sex. I have much more free time to learn and enjoy life. I could stay at this income level until I retire and still become a millionaire. It really has been a nice vacation; however, the injury is almost as healed as it is going to get so I'm going to head out into the earn your own way world. Ones lifestyle on "welfare" is not determined by income but rather by how you use that income and use the free time you have!

servantforuse -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 8:22:15 AM)
I would be interested to know just how many people on welfare in the US also have a cell phone at $30 to $40 per month. They recently showed the line at a food pantry here in Milwaukee just before Christmas. 4 people in line were talking on their cells while the cameras rolled. Priceless.

kittinSol -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 8:31:54 AM)
Since it's an accepted aspect of modern capitalism that not everyone can work, it follows that there's a need to pay people not to work. People who don't work, and who, for that very reason, allow others to have jobs, shouldn't be overly penalised for their sacrifice, and should be allowed to draw unemployment or whatever is available to them through the social safety net without being made to feel like they're the scum of the Earth.

submittous -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 9:05:04 AM)
I thought one of the points in the OP was about inheritence and the advantage it gives some people over others... it always interests me as a subject since the vast majority of Americans won't even consider changing the system in place. Most of us want that 100 grand from an Uncle or want to give our kids some help when we die.... But the reality is the system makes the trillions of dollars in the governing families an advantage that most Americans can't even fathom much less know about. Since at least 90% of the wealth in the US is controlled by at best the top 2% that means the rest of us are gubbing about for the 10% (or less) crumbs. If the playing field were level and the full wealth of the nations were available to be earned by each of us from birth I would predict the average standard of living for everyone, ourselves and our kids would be much greater but that would mean no inheritences.... Being older already I have another observation, people are living longer and it has been a surprise to me but here in Chapala with it's large retired ex-pat community we've noticed that inheritences are commonly being recieved by already retired people in their 60's since at least one of their parents are more and more living well into their 80's. So that money isn't really giving anyone a leg up or greater opportunity, rather just making retirees bank accounts a bit plusher. From a social policy point of view this doesn't seem to make good sense. Just a thought.

Moonhead -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 9:45:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Since it's an accepted aspect of modern capitalism that not everyone can work, it follows that there's a need to pay people not to work. People who don't work, and who, for that very reason, allow others to have jobs, shouldn't be overly penalised for their sacrifice, and should be allowed to draw unemployment or whatever is available to them through the social safety net without being made to feel like they're the scum of the Earth. They should probably get more than sixty quid a week as well. Sadly, people who have no problem with their taxes going to pay for wars that are illegal under international law or tax cuts for people who earn more in six months than they'll make in their lifetime tend to get snotty about welfare spending. Never understood that one.

DCWoody -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 10:08:50 AM)
@CountrySong "Disadvantaged or advantaged by luck of birth has very little to do with success in the United States and Canada." Well, that'd be your little secret. I think people living comfortably depends on your definition of comfortable, I was mainly thinking of western europe, rather than usa. When I posted this elsewhere ended up comparing modern europe to the ideals of communism and capitalism. Communism in part arose in horror at people starving in the street in the cities of the day, but now.....despite my country clearly not being communist......no matter how lazy, clumsy, stupid and irresponsible I am....I will never starve, be unintentionally homeless, be left to die, my kids will never go without a professional education. @Submittous, yeah...in reality lots of other issues get in the way, the 'luck of birth' thing these days being mostly about what country you're born in....which ya kind of have to put to one side to have this discussion fruitfully. Over here one of the arguments against higher inheritance tax is that 'we' also want to encourage people to save more....

popeye1250 -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 10:15:43 AM)
DC, "the global economy" throws a monkey wrench into your premise. What if I wanted to start a co. that makes underware in the state of S. Carolina? A few years ago when they passed "CAFTA" Haines underware closed it's plant in S.C., layed off 900 employees and started up a new plant in Honduras where they pay their "employees" $20-$30 per week! They also sell underware under the "Kirkland" brand at Costco. "Made in Honduras." Where's my "opportunity" to start a co. and employ people at good "livable" wages and benefits? Incidently I haven't bought any products from "Haines" or underware under the "Kirkland" brand since they closed their plant in S.C. and when my supply of underware runs out I'll be going "commando." As "Rex" said in another thread "we're living in a gilded age." When our own government enters into "free trade" deals that "remove" opportunity for U.S. Citizens solely because of the influence of big business then we have a serious problem! I can't for the life of me remember seeing American Citizens at protests holding up signs saying, "WE DEMAND FREE TRADE" when Clinton passed that POS "NAFTA." P.S. we all need to boycott Haines and a lot of other cos.

philosophy -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 10:47:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse I would be interested to know just how many people on welfare in the US also have a cell phone at $30 to $40 per month. ...ever heard of pay-as-you-talk? When i was on the dole i didn't particulary want to pay for a cell phone but had to, as it was my single best means of contacting employers and vice versa.

Termyn8or -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 10:48:08 AM)
FR How come this keeps coming back to money ? Sure, growing up in opulence is great, but does it make one better ? I would almost tend to think the opposite more true. It costs money to be ignorant, thus I conclude that there must be a hell of alot of money out there. If I had kids and alot of money we would live right here, in what some would consider the ghetto. Not quite but it is relative like anything else. I don't care if I have $10,000,000 in the safe, we are having burgers. Despite being able to buy Jay Leno's car collection we will hop into a 15 year old car for the ride to school. The only outward sign of our wealth woulod be the fact that the AC works. Schools provide tools, that's it. It's what one does with them that matters. And I don't know where everyone has been lately, but it is damn hard to get welfare around here these days. You might get food stamps in the form of a card, which is affectionately named a grub stub in the streets. Unless you got kids, you don't generally get a check unless you are somehow disabled. I don't remember exactly who, but someone in history did express a disdain for people who expect their Parents to pay for college. His assertion was that they should pay for themselves, and I guess that's what he did. I can understand. I don't know if I agree, but I understand the point. It has also been said that if you take the money away from a self made millionaire and give it to a pauper, within a few short years the ex-millionaire will again become rich, while the pauper will again become poor. I agree. Within the confines of this subject, money is no more than a way to keep score and is no more important than the tablet with the scores from a card game on it. Money means next to nothing. Our buddy GWB couldn't run a business to save his life, despite being from one of the richest families in this country. Grampa Prescott would probably kick his ass. And our old buddy Bill Gates, no matter how much you might hate him, and be aware of how much he stole to amass his fortune, still started out small. The company was Traff-o-meter and replaced the people sitting on the side of the road doing a traffic survey with electronics. Talk about small time ! And all he did was to buy DOS, steal the concept of the GUI and hire some geeks to make it all work together. They went on to build to most elaborate DOS shell ever, known as Windows, which stole much from Quarterdeck, who marketed a similar product back in the eighties which had features that were suspiciously similar to those of Windows. It was called Desqview IIRC. Of the two examples, one became President and the other did not. I will refrain from speculation on that aspect for now. But think of this - in your opinion, which had the greater opportunity ? T

Silence8 -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 12:43:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or FR How come this keeps coming back to money ? Sure, growing up in opulence is great, but does it make one better ? I would almost tend to think the opposite more true. It costs money to be ignorant, thus I conclude that there must be a hell of alot of money out there. If I had kids and alot of money we would live right here, in what some would consider the ghetto. Not quite but it is relative like anything else. I don't care if I have $10,000,000 in the safe, we are having burgers. Despite being able to buy Jay Leno's car collection we will hop into a 15 year old car for the ride to school. The only outward sign of our wealth woulod be the fact that the AC works. Schools provide tools, that's it. It's what one does with them that matters. And I don't know where everyone has been lately, but it is damn hard to get welfare around here these days. You might get food stamps in the form of a card, which is affectionately named a grub stub in the streets. Unless you got kids, you don't generally get a check unless you are somehow disabled. I don't remember exactly who, but someone in history did express a disdain for people who expect their Parents to pay for college. His assertion was that they should pay for themselves, and I guess that's what he did. I can understand. I don't know if I agree, but I understand the point. It has also been said that if you take the money away from a self made millionaire and give it to a pauper, within a few short years the ex-millionaire will again become rich, while the pauper will again become poor. I agree. Within the confines of this subject, money is no more than a way to keep score and is no more important than the tablet with the scores from a card game on it. Money means next to nothing. Our buddy GWB couldn't run a business to save his life, despite being from one of the richest families in this country. Grampa Prescott would probably kick his ass. And our old buddy Bill Gates, no matter how much you might hate him, and be aware of how much he stole to amass his fortune, still started out small. The company was Traff-o-meter and replaced the people sitting on the side of the road doing a traffic survey with electronics. Talk about small time ! And all he did was to buy DOS, steal the concept of the GUI and hire some geeks to make it all work together. They went on to build to most elaborate DOS shell ever, known as Windows, which stole much from Quarterdeck, who marketed a similar product back in the eighties which had features that were suspiciously similar to those of Windows. It was called Desqview IIRC. Of the two examples, one became President and the other did not. I will refrain from speculation on that aspect for now. But think of this - in your opinion, which had the greater opportunity ? T Sure sounds as if you're describing two sides of the same coin. Bill Gates, GWB-- it's abundantly clear humanity needed neither of these two. As far as money is concerned, their relationships to it are as follows: GWB relied on it and the social, familial credit it implies; Bill Gates sought it and only it, in the process creating a capital good symptomatic of its excess (i.e., totally sucky, the virtually instantiated form of a vampire).

thompsonx -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 1:04:03 PM)
quote: I would be interested to know just how many people on welfare in the US also have a cell phone at $30 to $40 per month. They recently showed the line at a food pantry here in Milwaukee just before Christmas. 4 people in line were talking on their cells while the cameras rolled. Priceless. I'll bet those scumbag motherfuckers also had shoes and clothes. How much do you think a "hardwire" phone costs per month? T.

thompsonx -> RE: Equality of opportunity. (1/4/2010 1:12:05 PM)
quote: Disadvantaged or advantaged by luck of birth has very little to do with success in the United States and Canada. Knowledge, self disipline, personal responsibility, common sense, and work count more here. Do you have any actual facts to back up this wishful thinking? quote: You can start out here with nothing and make yourself into a millionaire - I am. I would be willing to look at that list of people in the U.S. who started with nothing and became millionairs? We are all very happy that you are a millionaire but that begs the question...if you are a millionaire why do you care about people on welfare? T.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625