Thanks for your comment. One of the points I tried to make at the beginning of my essay is that inequality is more a function of family structures and education levels than race.
A certain amount of inequality is inherent in a free market economy. Edward Conard, a founding partner of Bain Capital, made this point in his 2016 book, "The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class." Not everybody agrees with him and that's the rub. Even those who agree with Conard may wonder how much inequality is "reasonable" and whether it can be shared equally across all groups. Should we be concerned that the work of Anne Case and Angus Deaton shows that college graduates live 8.5 years longer than their peers without degrees? If so, what should we do about it? Should we be concerned that 40% of America's babies are born to single mothers given what we know about the downsides of single-parenting and its impact on children? If so, what should we do about it? Should we be concerned that a 2019 analysis from Pew Research shows that America has a higher percentage of families headed by single parents than almost any country in the world?
These are tough questions that transcend race. Having a large, permanent group of disadvantaged people will lead to more internal strife, put more pressure on the government to expand the social safety net, and hurt America's competitive position in the global economy. Ignoring these issues allows them to fester, so what should we do about them? We can't mandate equal outcomes in a free market economy. Some will do well and some won't for the reasons you mentioned. Promoting economic mobility by ensuring that the playing field is level and showing people pathways to achieving equality and/or their version of the American Dream would reduce resentment and boost prosperity.
One other thought about agency. Do you believe that many of the good books in poor school district libraries have become dog-eared from over-use? How many victims "underserve" themselves by ignoring pathways to a better tomorrow?
If you're on a mission to reform the behavior of single-mothers so that their children don't continue the culture, more power to you. To those whom I have tried to help, I received no small compliment. They "schooled-me" about their true character. I accepted their point of view.
Tough questions? No, I think not. Why? Why should we worry about different outcomes, unless of course they are products of some ugly form of discrimination like a race-based qualification for service or admission.
Look, I retired at 55 on a small pension. Great decision, or a silly one? At the time, I could not know, but I took a chance. Now, twenty years later, I firmly believe it was among the best decisions I have ever made, my lower-class income, notwithstanding. Another individual -- say Warren Buffett, or Jimmy Cramer -- look at life in a different manner. They continue to work and seemingly discount free time. Why? Why do they continue their slavery to market actions and investments? I do not know. Of course, not for me, but I'll note, in this comparison, there is no issue of race, class, ethnicity, religion, or even geography. Point is, differences in life stations can arise for a host of reasons, totally divorced from the assumption that we should strive for equality or equity. That Cramer and Buffett disagree with me is fine. I feel no moral imperative to 'educate' them that the first principle of economics is "scarcity." They answer by using their time in a way that I do not. I fail to see the moral imperative for everyone to use free will for the same objective.
Finally, I will also note that I have yet to write a book. Does that imply or suggest I have nothing to say? Thanks for your contribution.
Thanks for your comment. We're mostly in agreement. We may differ when it comes to our levels of concern about the resentment and dysfunctional politics that various forms of inequality have catalyzed. I don''t resent or envy Buffett and his wealth because I think he came by it honestly and that his success didn't come at my expense. Nor do I envy the wealth of others such as Bezos, Musk, or Zuckerberg. There are others, however, who believe that nobody should be able to amass so much wealth. Senator Bernie Sanders, for example, said during the 2016 Democratic debates that billionaires shouldn't exist:
I think he's wrong and that the politics of resentment are harmful. They exacerbate divisions within the country and lead to bad policy ideas. My hope is that fact-based arguments that show outcomes are more the result of the choices we make than the predetermined outcomes from a stacked deck will help move our politics in a better direction.
Agree. I don't resent Cramer's wealth...nor that of Buffett. What I tried to make clear was that I feel richer than both of them.....richer in the sense that I would never spend my "scarce time" before death, chasing even more dollars. That they waste their time chasing more money seems both shallow without meaningful marginal gain or achievement. Thus, I have no interest in doing something to attain their level of wealth.
Thanks for your comment. One of the points I tried to make at the beginning of my essay is that inequality is more a function of family structures and education levels than race.
A certain amount of inequality is inherent in a free market economy. Edward Conard, a founding partner of Bain Capital, made this point in his 2016 book, "The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class." Not everybody agrees with him and that's the rub. Even those who agree with Conard may wonder how much inequality is "reasonable" and whether it can be shared equally across all groups. Should we be concerned that the work of Anne Case and Angus Deaton shows that college graduates live 8.5 years longer than their peers without degrees? If so, what should we do about it? Should we be concerned that 40% of America's babies are born to single mothers given what we know about the downsides of single-parenting and its impact on children? If so, what should we do about it? Should we be concerned that a 2019 analysis from Pew Research shows that America has a higher percentage of families headed by single parents than almost any country in the world?
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/12/12/u-s-children-more-likely-than-children-in-other-countries-to-live-with-just-one-parent/
If so, what should we do about it?
These are tough questions that transcend race. Having a large, permanent group of disadvantaged people will lead to more internal strife, put more pressure on the government to expand the social safety net, and hurt America's competitive position in the global economy. Ignoring these issues allows them to fester, so what should we do about them? We can't mandate equal outcomes in a free market economy. Some will do well and some won't for the reasons you mentioned. Promoting economic mobility by ensuring that the playing field is level and showing people pathways to achieving equality and/or their version of the American Dream would reduce resentment and boost prosperity.
One other thought about agency. Do you believe that many of the good books in poor school district libraries have become dog-eared from over-use? How many victims "underserve" themselves by ignoring pathways to a better tomorrow?
If you're on a mission to reform the behavior of single-mothers so that their children don't continue the culture, more power to you. To those whom I have tried to help, I received no small compliment. They "schooled-me" about their true character. I accepted their point of view.
Tough questions? No, I think not. Why? Why should we worry about different outcomes, unless of course they are products of some ugly form of discrimination like a race-based qualification for service or admission.
Look, I retired at 55 on a small pension. Great decision, or a silly one? At the time, I could not know, but I took a chance. Now, twenty years later, I firmly believe it was among the best decisions I have ever made, my lower-class income, notwithstanding. Another individual -- say Warren Buffett, or Jimmy Cramer -- look at life in a different manner. They continue to work and seemingly discount free time. Why? Why do they continue their slavery to market actions and investments? I do not know. Of course, not for me, but I'll note, in this comparison, there is no issue of race, class, ethnicity, religion, or even geography. Point is, differences in life stations can arise for a host of reasons, totally divorced from the assumption that we should strive for equality or equity. That Cramer and Buffett disagree with me is fine. I feel no moral imperative to 'educate' them that the first principle of economics is "scarcity." They answer by using their time in a way that I do not. I fail to see the moral imperative for everyone to use free will for the same objective.
Finally, I will also note that I have yet to write a book. Does that imply or suggest I have nothing to say? Thanks for your contribution.
Thanks for your comment. We're mostly in agreement. We may differ when it comes to our levels of concern about the resentment and dysfunctional politics that various forms of inequality have catalyzed. I don''t resent or envy Buffett and his wealth because I think he came by it honestly and that his success didn't come at my expense. Nor do I envy the wealth of others such as Bezos, Musk, or Zuckerberg. There are others, however, who believe that nobody should be able to amass so much wealth. Senator Bernie Sanders, for example, said during the 2016 Democratic debates that billionaires shouldn't exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kpWkjlR3OQ
I think he's wrong and that the politics of resentment are harmful. They exacerbate divisions within the country and lead to bad policy ideas. My hope is that fact-based arguments that show outcomes are more the result of the choices we make than the predetermined outcomes from a stacked deck will help move our politics in a better direction.
Agree. I don't resent Cramer's wealth...nor that of Buffett. What I tried to make clear was that I feel richer than both of them.....richer in the sense that I would never spend my "scarce time" before death, chasing even more dollars. That they waste their time chasing more money seems both shallow without meaningful marginal gain or achievement. Thus, I have no interest in doing something to attain their level of wealth.