[cbolton]

> Going from zero to billionaire in two generations actually says something remarkable about our system.

This data point doesn't distinguish between a system that fairly rewards abilities, and one that works like a lottery. My guess is that the US is in between: it unfairly rewards abilities, and chance plays a large role.

Taking Jeff Bezos as example: 1) he certainly has remarkable abilities but maybe not 1,000,000 times more than the median American, yet he has about 1,000,000 times the wealth; 2) it's plausible that the US population of 350M includes several people with abilities similar to Bezos yet no notable wealth due to various circumstances. Both points suggest an unfair system.

[rayiner]

Why are you assuming that “fairness” requires a linear distribution between ability and wealth? A winner-take-all system may be undesirable in many respects, but it’s not necessarily unfair.

[cbolton]

Yeah there's no reason it should be a linear function, but it's a moot point anyway until we define what it would mean to have "X times more abilities".

My point is that having tycoons with 1,000,000 times the wealth of the median person is not a fair distribution, no matter which reasonable function you choose.

If you think superficially of "fair" like in a game, then yes a winner-take-all system can be fair. But when talking about socioeconomics, I think fairness goes a bit deeper. For example I would say a society with a lottery that picks one winner and tortures all others is not fair to those who lose (even though it's game-fair).

[rayiner]

Do you think "fair" is about procedures or outcomes?

[cbolton]

Isn't it of course both? What do you think?