Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

Post by rectang » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:28 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #156

rectang wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is not necessarily any reason to believe that the current mix of inequality conditions are particularly cruel or unfavorable. This is precisely the arbitrary value judgement that we do not have to accept. You (and others) don't believe that it's particularly cruel or unfavorable, and you're just wrapping that judgement in a mantle of inevitability.

> This is precisely the arbitrary value judgement that we do not have to accept. Sure, I agree. Neither of us made the case for particular cruelty / non-cruelty because it's not really the point. My intention was only to broaden the scope and perspective of the reader to view the economic system in its macro-level historical and global context, and compare in reference to the natural forces and conditions that cause…

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:43 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #160

s73v3r_ wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need to provide evidence that they are not. But for my evidence, I would put forth important positions, like teachers, being grossly underpaid as evidence that they are arbitrarily chosen.

It’s not arbitrary at all. The market sets pricing, it’s not magic. If we fully deregulated education I bet you’d see teacher’s salaries rise. Of course then only the wealthy would get an education but it’s disingenuous to suggest demand and its impact on price is “arbitrary”.

Post by falcolas » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:50 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #160

s73v3r_ wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need to provide evidence that they are not. But for my evidence, I would put forth important positions, like teachers, being grossly underpaid as evidence that they are arbitrarily chosen.

It’s not arbitrary at all. The market sets pricing, it’s not magic. If we fully deregulated education I bet you’d see teacher’s salaries rise. Of course then only the wealthy would get an education but it’s disingenuous to suggest demand and its impact on price is “arbitrary”.

Post by malvosenior » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:52 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #166

malvosenior wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not arbitrary at all. The market sets pricing, it’s not magic. If we fully deregulated education I bet you’d see teacher’s salaries rise. Of course then only the wealthy would get an education but it’s disingenuous to suggest demand and its impact on price is “arbitrary”.

By the market, do you mean the government? Because they set the budget for education, and that budget determines how much money is available to pay teachers with. Or do you mean the voters, who typically vote down attempts to increase the money for education budgets - typically because most taxpayers don't have children active in education. There are no market forces at work here whatsoever. > If we fully deregulated…

Post by ABCLAW » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 8:09 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #155

ABCLAW wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're radically changing the goal posts of success if a wide swath of educated, hard working young professionals can't afford to lay down roots in the cities they grew up in because of the current absurd asset bubble's effect on home prices. Additionally, your example is kinda silly. on an income of $200k, you can afford a high end luxury apartment with approximately half of your income - as a bachelor.

I don't disagree that real estate is inflated due to cheap money, but I would challenge the idea that just because you were born in a city you have the right to expect to be able to own a home there. As for the $200K comment, I meant own a home , not rent an apartment.