thea
Full Member
Posts: 334
|
Post by thea on Sept 7, 2009 1:22:32 GMT -5
Hi, folks I haven't posted anything for awhile I've been busy with my family the youngest being 8 months. Anyhow, I do surf the net and check the forum to read articles and postings. Right now, I am in a sociological mood and have been pondering my value system vs. the larger American mainstream value system and I just don't feel connected to alot of it at all. Does everyone truly believe we're all created equal? In what ways are we all equal? and in what ways are we not? I believe 2 people can have the exact same occupation and pay but after that nothing really is equal. Take for example 3 doctors of the same exact speciality and same exact pay. In that respect they are of equal occupation, and pay. However, in all else they are unequal, one doctor may have come from a family of doctors so he probably knew what to expect, may have had family connections etc. He also completed his studies within the usual amount of time. Another doctor may have come from a working class family with no college education, but whose family had high expectations and a good work ethic. This person completed his medical degree within a shorter length of time. Another may have come from a very challenging childhood of abuse or broken family etc, and still manage to overcome those difficulties and reach his medical occupational goal. He probably may have taken longer than usual to complete his earlier educational goals due to his unstable family situation. Some people develop slowly by increments, some by hops and skips and others by leaps and bounds. Some people have talent or are smart, but are not dogged or do not persevere under adversity. Even if these 3 guys share the same occupation and pay they probably may live a different lifestyle from each other. What are your thoughts on equality or social parity?
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Sept 7, 2009 2:58:46 GMT -5
I guess you are looking for personal opinions however if you're not you should dig the internet because it is an already vastly debated issue. I don't believe we're all created equal even if we belong to the same specie, firstly because of biological differences within the human race, from differing physical appearances to propensity to develop particular behavioral traits.
Concerning social equality, the first half of the 20th century witnessed the rise of feminism, communism and anti-slavery movements led by the Western idea of universalism, women saw their emancipation, minorities got the right to vote and communists took away property rights, but does it mean they were really equal?
Post civil rights movements world is all about discriminating to end de facto inequal social situations that theoritically equal individuals suffer from because of inelianable traits like gender, country of origin or religion. Affirmative action policies show that in reality we are not born or even remain equal because of cultural, social and particular biological factors.
I don't think the goal of complete equality or parity makes any sense, sure Human rights should be guaranteed but the fact that hard coded differences exist in the human race and human societies shouldn't be wiped out because it is both unnatural and undesirable progress-wise.
There will always be people better at things than others and they should be rewarded even if it means that they were born with unequal superior physical or intellectual abilities or else it will only harvest mediocrity. What is the point to promote gender parity in legislative bodies if so few of them actually have political/moral takes on what they're voting ! Same for stay-home dad legislation... (newborns viscerally need a female affection and care) you get the point...
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Sept 7, 2009 7:41:37 GMT -5
I believe all of us have a purpose in life, and with that in mind I do believe we are all born equals. Same with the rest of nature, animals, plants; they have a purpose too. Even if we as human beings consume them we must respect them. Eat what you kill, honor what you eat - it's a "pagan" animist/shamanist philosophy.
I still believe in meritocracy however, and although I believe we are all born worthy of respect, what we do in life and the choices we make still judge us. I believe all humans are born humans, but I don't believe all humans stay humans. As for discrimination, it will still exists for now, whether it's race, religion, class, gender or even educational background.
I still remember my wife telling me how she sees her hardships in the past however, she merely replied that "if what I went through has any purpose, that purpose is to help others who is going through what I went through". Personally I like her mentality, but as a hot-headed sort, I fail to see how those who hurt people have the right to get away with a title of "human being" which they clearly do not deserve it.
To summarise my opinion; I believe in meritocracy, you are who you prove yourself to be. Equality is given at birth, but who you as a person is still governed by the natural law of meritocracy.
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Sept 7, 2009 9:43:11 GMT -5
Well, we're all human beings but I doesn't mean our characteristics are the same and should that we should be equal under all circumstances.
I deduce that you're against the Welfare State since you believe we're all born equal and that existing inequalities like social classes and income disparity are mere fables.
It 's so easy to argue that we're all equal and that meritocracy is the only way to reward individuals based on their merit but what if your family lacks so much resources that you can't achieve what your efforts should award you?
Have you thought of immigrants from different cultures relocating, of working class children whose parents can't help in their homework because they lack sufficient educational background or of other ordinary social injustice people face everyday?
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Sept 7, 2009 10:36:50 GMT -5
The intergenerational correlation of lifetime income is about 0.5. On average, your own test scores (IQ,SAT,etc.) are about 50% due to your parents IQ (both directly through genetics and through the effect of their IQ on your family income) and about 50% due to the part of your parents' wealth that is uncorrelated with their IQ.
So of course no one is really equal or born equal (except in the sense of having equal rights which is highly conditional on which society you are born in to and how willing they are to enforce those rights).
I've always thought that equality IS something worth striving for, and by equality I mean not just equality of opportunity but also equality of outcomes. Given what I've cited above, I'm not overly confident that you can achieve one without the other - given the importance of your family background, an activist welfare state can only enforce limited equality of opportunity without actively redistributing wealth and breaking the strong inter-generational heritability of intelligence (and other forms of "merit"). So I think you need some equality of outcomes to get equality of opportunity - this might explain why (contrary to popular belief) intergenerational social mobility is actually LOWER in the US than in much of Europe.
On the other hand, I understand the importance of incentives. While an ideal society is one where we have "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," and that allows people to realize their full potential unconstrained by material scarcity, relying on love for humanity, for others, and recognition and pride to motivate greatness, we certainly don't live in that Star Trek-like world yet. I think the redistributionist welfare state IS the "end of history" unless humans achieve a degree of moral perfection and technological advancement that I have yet to observe on any significant scale. I believe in highly redistributive tax policies over both income and inherited wealth, strong government support for public health and education, policies that promote employment, etc. In a perfect world I would prefer that that affirmative action were based only on family income and not race/gender, but in our current world there is both a high degree of correlation between income and race/gender, and a tendency to perceive others through the prism of race rather than class alone. So I'm for limited race and gender based affirmative action, and would like to see it replaced with policies that target based on class rather than race.
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Sept 7, 2009 11:57:40 GMT -5
The intergenerational correlation of lifetime income is about 0.5. On average, your own test scores (IQ,SAT,etc.) are about 50% due to your parents IQ (both directly through genetics and through the effect of their IQ on your family income) and about 50% due to the part of your parents' wealth that is uncorrelated with their IQ. So of course no one is really equal or born equal (except in the sense of having equal rights which is highly conditional on which society you are born in to and how willing they are to enforce those rights). I've always thought that equality IS something worth striving for, and by equality I mean not just equality of opportunity but also equality of outcomes. Given what I've cited above, I'm not overly confident that you can achieve one without the other - given the importance of your family background, an activist welfare state can only enforce limited equality of opportunity without actively redistributing wealth and breaking the strong inter-generational heritability of intelligence (and other forms of "merit"). So I think you need some equality of outcomes to get equality of opportunity - this might explain why (contrary to popular belief) intergenerational social mobility is actually LOWER in the US than in much of Europe. On the other hand, I understand the importance of incentives. While an ideal society is one where we have "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," and that allows people to realize their full potential unconstrained by material scarcity, relying on love for humanity, for others, and recognition and pride to motivate greatness, we certainly don't live in that Star Trek-like world yet. I think the redistributionist welfare state IS the "end of history" unless humans achieve a degree of moral perfection and technological advancement that I have yet to observe on any significant scale. I believe in highly redistributive tax policies over both income and inherited wealth, strong government support for public health and education, policies that promote employment, etc. In a perfect world I would prefer that that affirmative action were based only on family income and not race/gender, but in our current world there is both a high degree of correlation between income and race/gender, and a tendency to perceive others through the prism of race rather than class alone. So I'm for limited race and gender based affirmative action, and would like to see it replaced with policies that target based on class rather than race. The 'end of History' is a controversial theory since it doesn't take into account the current trend of State disengagement from socio-economical spheres observed throughout the world the past decade. Internal inequalities are actually rising almost all over the globe.. I agree with your last statement, several studies have shown that minority student who get into top US universities thanks to affirmative action are from wealthy families except for a couple of straight A's geniuses. I don't think Obama's grand-parents were poor at all if he could afford over 100k in university tuition. I think it is important to kepp in mind that judicial professions or political mandates rightly allow exclusive rights for the sake of independent government and stability.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Sept 8, 2009 6:34:34 GMT -5
Sorry Ganbare, I didn't make myself very clear last post.
Yes, human beings when born are gifted and/or cursed with diffrent characteristics, some are gifted with a high IQ, some with low, some are gifted with better physical capability, some are gifted with both, etc etc. That's common knowledge.
But personally I believe there are a lot more characteristics learnt/adopted then characteristics you are born with. A person who was born with a high IQ, may not be able to do a spcific job for instance because he's too unskilled in a particular job or even just slack, spoiled, etc. A person who was born with a lower IQ may end up taking the job from him etc. Similar scenarios like this play out all the time.
Btw I'm not against welfare, but I am against people who actuallly cheat the welfare system.
Now retirees/disabled people/etc obviously can't work, and should be entitled to pensions. Yes I believe in meritocracy but doesn't mean I would force them to work, I don't equate someone's individual worth by their dollar tag etc. I believe in steppe meritocracy which comes directly from my ancestral culture, but not materialist meritocracy - which is quite modern.
And on the other hand there are quite a good number of dole bluggers out there; theey don't work because they don't want to, free-loading off other people's tax money. And as for academic education it can be seriously over-rated, I've seen people go jobless for years after university yet those who go through trade apprenticeships/traineeships end up having their own business by the time the uni-grads get themselvess a job.
In America I've heard the dole has a time limit - forgive me if I'm wrong. In Australia there is none. In many other countries of the world where there is no dole people still survive. There are quite a lot of job opportunities here already, but unfotunately many citizens don't appreciate it nor do they make full use of any of these - except of course the dole.
|
|
Shock
Full Member
Posts: 261
|
Post by Shock on Sept 13, 2009 13:26:20 GMT -5
Does everyone truly believe we're all created equal? In what ways are we all equal? and in what ways are we not? We have not been created by some superior being, we are the result of evolution. Equality is a philosophical term and doesn't have place in the universe.
|
|
Shock
Full Member
Posts: 261
|
Post by Shock on Sept 13, 2009 13:27:26 GMT -5
Equality is the ultimate weapons of the weak to overthrow the mighty. I should put it in my signature.
|
|
Shock
Full Member
Posts: 261
|
Post by Shock on Sept 13, 2009 13:27:55 GMT -5
To summarise my opinion; I believe in meritocracy, you are who you prove yourself to be. Equality is given at birth, but who you as a person is still governed by the natural law of meritocracy. In which manner, are we born equal?
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Sept 14, 2009 14:32:58 GMT -5
^The 'end of History' is a controversial theory since it doesn't take into account the current trend of State disengagement from socio-economical spheres observed throughout the world the past decade. Internal inequalities are actually rising almost all over the globe..
True, Fukuyama got a lot of criticism for using that phrase. But I'm not sure I agree that there is a global trend of disengagement from the socio-economic sphere. Sure it's mostly driven by healthcare, but government spending as a share of GDP has not declined in most of the world (even in the 1980s under Reagan/Thatcher). To the extent that there has been some disengagement or "regressive" redistribution policy (let's say the Bush tax cuts outweigh the expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs), it's not at all clear that it's been the main cause of increasing inequality, compared to, say, globalization and skill-biased technological change. At this stage, people are tinkering with whether the top marginal tax rate in the US should be 36% or 39%, but it is hard to foresee a very dramatic turn towards statism or the market. I don't know much about French domestic policy, Ganbare, but is Sarkozy (who is supposely the conservative) really considering dramatic reductions in entitlements to offset large tax cuts for the rich? I don't think any politician could get elected in France promising to make France more like America...
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Sept 14, 2009 16:20:03 GMT -5
You're probably right skills and globalization has a primary role in this.
However I believe that for once Europe is leading the change here, Old World States are actually privatizing concessions, social security and lowering its intervention in socio-economical spheres. North America strangely is rolling back to a sort of 'Neo-New Deal' for instance recapitalizing banks directly responsible of the financial crisis, Obama's project of universal health care or the recent generous welfare benefits policy in Quebec.
He did cut taxes for the 1% richest taxpayers (eg: no one should pay more than 50% of their income in taxes, not really your average small entrepreneur). France is becoming less and less socialist, we still are far from the US in terms of income redistribution but it's becoming more and more like Canada, sorta third way-ish.
If not too indiscrete, what is your thesis about? I once thought of becoming an economist but I grew a bit disillusioned by the idea.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Sept 15, 2009 13:56:03 GMT -5
Only in France would a decrease of taxes from 60 to 50% be considered "conservative"! But yes, one might argue that the US and Europe were both converging to a common level of government, at least before this recession (which has led to a massive increase in government spending in virtually all countries).
Anyway, Canada (39.3% of GDP is government) is much closer to the US (36.6%) than to France (52.4%). Which may not be a bad thing - as much as I am left-leaning, I do think there are downsides to being too reliant on the state for everything.
My own research falls into several areas, but mostly involves (a)measuring living standards, (b)measuring the gains from trade, (c)understanding retail pricing behavior and real exchange rates across countries. Which is at the nexus of macro, international, and development economics. In particular I've been thinking a lot about how the introduction of new goods (through trade with other countries or techological innovation) impact consumer welfare and how much consumers benefit from being able to choose from a wider variety of products. I mostly do empirical research with lots of data, but find consumer theory to be indispensable.
Some of the stuff I do is very much related to current debates about inequality. A few recent papers have argued that higher inequality in the US is not as bad as it seems because the relative prices of goods consumed by poor households have increased more slowly than the goods consumed by rich households. Understanding consumer choice - why rich households would continue to consume more expensive goods even as they became relatively more expensive - and the interaction of price and income elasticities is key to assessing how "relative well-being" has changed over time and how it is related to changes in relative (nominal) incomes.
There are a lot of problems with economics and not many satisfying answers, but I find that it frequently asks the most interesting questions. As someone concerned about the distribution of resources in society and government policy, it's hard to see where else I would be (other than practicing politics directly).
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Sept 17, 2009 11:40:03 GMT -5
Economics do span alot of interesting organizational, social and even philosophical questions but whatever expertise economists have, they're only advisors, ultimately, politicians are the ones making decisions.
Yes, US Governement GDP contribution is 'small government' compared to the rest of the Western world but people tend to forget that developped Asian countries regulates much less but still several of them (eg: Japan) have lower income disparities than the US.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Oct 1, 2009 3:18:35 GMT -5
Equality is given to you by birth, the choices you make, the effort you put into these decisions, defines who you are as a person, and what you yourself are worthy of.
Meritocracy has replaced my past ideologies of judging by race, class or religion. Nowadays I'd rather judge people by who they are, not what they are born as. Even though I've always been taught it, I never really learnt it until being subject to my wife's influence.
Embarrassing thing is... she isn't even Mongol, yet she puts me in my place. Her influence... was always rather, seductive...
From my experience, much of the evil "Darth Subo" has done was due to failure of learning my own people's ancient principles. Meritocracy comes from a militaristic culture, there is more to a real warrior then how to fight physically.
That's my form of 'equality'. If a f--kwit decides to be a dole blugger and tries to step beyond his STATION on the street thinking he's all that while living off OTHER PPL'S TAX MONEY then he has it coming. I hope you can understand this. I believe in equality by birth, but that's it, what people end up BECOMING is another story in the end.
|
|