[slenocchio]

That's a mischaracterization. No one is _for_ inequality. The opposition you speak of is _for_ race/gender blind meritocracy. Anyone with a little knowledge of economics understands that groups of people cut across any dimension will always have different outcomes; Russian Americans earn more than French Americans, Japanese Americans earn more than Fillipino Americans, taller people earn more than shorter people, etc.

No one thinks inequality is desirable. The opposition you speak of think it's unavoidable. And bad public policy will have effects that make the situation worse for everyone.

[throwaway22032]

Hi - as a counterpoint, I think that inequality is desirable.

In a world with limited resources I think it makes sense to allocate more resources towards people who perform acts for society which require rare skill sets, talent, etc. That might mean more money, it might mean land, it might mean status, or anything else really.

The idea being that those rewards both serve as motivation and also help those people to focus on the good work that they are doing.

You can apply this to basically anything - I think that a more beautiful person, all else being equal, should recieve favourable treatment over an ugly one.

The main downside of such an approach seems to be that, to put it simply, losers get less than winners and to some people that seems unfair. But it's only unfair if the rewards allocated aren't proportional to merit.

I don't really consider this to be controversial to be honest - I think someone who is twice as good as me as a programmer, or contributes twice as much value to the business, or hell, is twice as good at football as me - should receive at least twice as much. That's unequal, but it's also sane and right.

[zeroonetwothree]

I think that you are arguing against equity not equality. Usually the latter means “equality of opportunity”. At least that’s typically the difference in most debates.

[throwaway22032]

I don't consider there to be a difference.

A society in which the children of successful people are prioritised over the children of unsuccessful people is almost certain to lead to better outcomes for exactly the same reasons.

I came from an underprivileged background myself, if I were investing money with an aim to generating a return, I'd far sooner give it to a banker's son than someone from the estate I grew up on. I was the exception, not the rule, and the older I get the more I figure I must just be some sort of genetic freak, since the overwhelming opinion seems to be that our fate is predestined, nowadays.

[zero-sharp]

Family wealth is probably an indicator for future success. I don't know the numbers, but I would expect family wealth to correlate positively with the earnings of the children. So if you want a return on investment, it makes sense to bet on the wealthy.

But I thought we were talking merit and opportunity? No, being a banker's son doesn't predestine you to being more skillful. You should already have enough counterexamples to demonstrate that fact.

Your comment is borderline bewildering. It's like corruption and nepotism don't exist.

[pfdietz]

> No one is _for_ inequality.

I suggest that's an extraordinarily naive statement.

[slenocchio]

Can you send me writing or video of any serious thinker advocating for this? The OP is a common straw-man characterization of the position I described.

[pfdietz]

> serious thinker

No True Scotsman detected.

[slenocchio]

I read the article you sent, it doesn't prove your point.

[pfdietz]

It's interesting how "no one is for inequality" is taken as a statement that doesn't require proof (my original statement was about my impression, not a clear statement that was the case.)

I suggest that categorical statement that, universally, everyone is against inequality, needs some justification. Historically it's certainly not true AT ALL.

[slenocchio]

Ok how about any thinker.

[pfdietz]

https://truthout.org/articles/the-far-right-regards-human-in...

[zeroonetwothree]

It seems like this just assumes the conclusion?

“ As an imprecise working definition (not for all times and places but for the United States today), “far right” is used here to mean political forces that (a) regard human inequality as natural, ”

[CoastalCoder]

I assumed it was hyperbole on the GP's part.