[ConfuciusSay]

Yeah, agreed - the main point of income inequality is missed.

Beyond the employee who makes 100x less than the CEO, it's also the people who have little to no hope of even getting a job at such a company, because they weren't lucky enough to be born into an environment that allowed them to develop to a certain degree of their potential.

[Romanulus]

Are you saying that there's no way of for the poors to dig them out of their poor-holes? How do you explain all the penniless immigrants and third-world inventors?

The problem with your rationale is that this type of thinking allows lazy people to blame their situation for their lot in life.

[ConfuciusSay]

No, I'm not saying there's no way to achieve social mobility. I'm saying that it's just very unlikely. There's always exceptions you can hold up as examples. Also, the idea that everyone living in the "third world" is penniless is ignorant. In every developing country, there is an elite whose children will have the same benefits during their upbringing as in any other country. The idea that because an inventor came from a developing country means that everyone has the same chance at social mobility is laughable.

Lazy people, indeed people in general, are experts at rationalizing away their problems. They don't need the help of my rationale. Of course, everyone should believe that they are capable of achieving anything they set their minds to - research shows that those who believe they are in control of their own destiny tend to be more successful in life. But from a statistical standpoint, there's no denying that people from a tough upbringing have a much harder time than otherwise.

[n4r9]

They're saying that the odds are stacked against people born into less well-off backgrounds. A lucky few might have the natural ability or freak opportunity to increase their livelihood; that doesn't justify environmentally influenced wage inequality.