[stegosaurus]

The idea of mobility is a warping of the term 'fair'. It assumes the existence of a system in which people are poor and rich, it's a priori unfair, regardless of whether movements are possible.

I am (was...) working class. I had the 'merit' to rise.

Do you understand what that means?

It means that completely randomly I was blessed with a talent. I also put a bit of work in (the willpower to do so is arguably a talent in itself).

So I win (in a limited sense. I'm not really well off, just relatively). And my schoolfriends do not.

How is that 'fair'? How does that concept of merit make any sense at all? It may result in more efficient allocation of resources, but only within the current system that ensures most people have restricted autonomy. In a reasonable world the difference between a lower and higher paying job would be toys, not serfdom vs. fu money.

The issue is not individual decisions of how to allocate capital, about wages being 'low' or 'high'.

The issue is wealth and ownership and the huge differentials. Especially on basic necessities. Ownership is useful and probably something we desire, but the ability for groups to monopolise/oligopolise the necessities of life (e.g. land) and then use force to defend them against people who need them is broken.

Worker lives in a flat, landlord owns the flat, the landlord owns a fraction of the workers' labour. Why should they need supernormal amounts of merit in order to escape that situation? Why should they need to be above average in order to live the life they already do but with the exploitation removed? It makes no sense.

[jinushaun]

I come from a similar situation and these sorts of discussions always frustrate me. Hearing well-off middle class people, typically White, debate lower class struggles. I lived through this. All of my friends had the same opportunities. I’m not exceptionally talented, but I got out and they stayed in the ghetto. I graduated high school, they dropped out. They bought Nikes and Nintendos, I went to the public library.

Ultimately, from what I experienced growing up, the poor keep each other down. So while they chose friends, I chose solitude. Because “fitting in” meant remaining poor, choosing crime and materialism over education and grades.

[xnull6guest]

I think we're trying to say the same thing. I am not suggesting that anyone should need supernormal amounts of merit to escape their condition.

[stegosaurus]

Probably.

I think what frustrates me is the idea of there even being a 'condition'.

It sort of makes sense globally. But in Western countries we can house everyone by just shuffling wealth about a bit, literally just writing words on paper. But we don't. To the rich money is a video game, to the poor it is a ball and chain...