Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
[SNIP a variety of stuff not what I intend to comment on]
Given that income disparity (between the richest, the rich and the poor) in the US is the largest in the world, [...]
|
Not so! Not even close!!! See
this reference or
this one (at Wikipedia), or any of a wide variety of others. Income disparity in the US is middle-of-the-pack, with some countries being moderately lower and others being
drastically higher. And note the criticisms including (most notably) "For a large, economically diverse country, a much higher coefficient will be calculated for the country as a whole than will be calculated for each of its regions. [...] For this reason, the scores calculated for individual countries within the EU are difficult to compare with the score of the entire US: the overall value for the EU should be used in that case, 31.3[4], which is still much lower than the United States', 45.[5]"
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
[SNIP some more]
and the myth notwithstanding, fairly little by way of actual social mobility (due to the relatively high costs associated with getting a good education),
|
Social mobility is a funny thing to measure. For example, do you include an individual's movement over time? When I first started working and supporting myself (before finishing college), my income put me just above the poverty line. When I last had a job in industry, my household's income was in the top 20% (but not quite in the top 5%). Then I went back to school for a mid-career Ph.D. and my household's income dropped into the "second fifth" -- and stayed there for 10 years. Now that I'm a PostDoc we're back into the 4th fifth, and will return to the top 20% when I go back to industry. Is that social mobility or not? (All using the data found
here at wikipedia, as converted via the Consumer Price Index because it's too late at night for me to look up historical quintiles.)
Alternatively, do you count by looking at generational changes? If so, you find that families move around between quintiles quite a lot over the generations. (No reference because it's getting late and I've done enough of your homework for you.) Those "relatively high costs associated with getting a good education" are part of the picture. But even just finishing high-school
while making sure you actually learned something is enough to take your household into the middle fifth or even the fourth fifth. And
that is a step that is well within the reach of any child who wishes to learn and whose family actually encourages them to do so. No college expenses required.
And I haven't even touched on the many ways of going to college that are available to motivated students. The Ivy League? If you can get yourself admitted, they'll find a way for you to attend no matter how bad your family's finances. Really! Lots of well-respected private schools do the same. Then there're state schools, community colleges, student loans, gov't grants, etc. When I hear someone say they "can't afford to go to college" I translate that as "I'm not willing to make financial sacrifices now to have a better life later." Because that's what it really boils down to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
I'd say fixing that would do more to lower crime rates than either giving everyone mandatory gun training or trying to outlaw them.
That said, this apparently goes against the whole "everyone has equal chance to make it, and if you don't make it it's your own fault" notion that is seemingly spoon-fed to everyone from birth, keeping people from supporting more equality of access to healthcare, schooling, etc., so it probably won't happen.
But it really isn't "socialism" to prefer creating or even paying for living conditions in which there is less reason for people to become disaffected with society as a whole..
|
Hmmmm... It is immediately obvious to the casual observer that not everybody has "an equal chance to make it." Some are born to wealth, others to poverty. Some are genius-level smart, others are handicapped. But there are plenty of factors that are clearly within the control of motivated individuals, should they choose to control them. Will you work at your schooling in order to learn? Or will you refuse to study because "it's boring" or "that's selling out to the man" (a popular line when I was in grade-school) or <fill-in-popular-excuse-here>? Will you encourage your children to read? Or park them in front of the TV?
Sure. Provide for the relatively few who truly cannot learn to take care of themselves. Work to provide realistic opportunity for a bootstrap up for those who are willing to try to make their lives better. Provide for those who cannot support themselves through no fault of their own.
Aside: If you are not a professional teacher, how many people have you taught to read? I haven't hit 10 yet, but I'll get there. Meanwhile, my wife has seen a dozen adult students from barely able to read all the way through their GED (high-school diploma equivalent, for non-US readers). All volunteer effort. And much more typical of the US than "fix it with a government program." See a problem? Don't like it? Get out there and DO something about it!
As for equality of access to healthcare, schooling, etc. I've been in plenty of the "hopeless inner city schools." They suck. But you can still learn there, if you want to. This doesn't mean they couldn't (or shouldn't) be improved, but that's a rant for another day. I note, however, that education outcomes are far more strongly influenced by family attitudes than by the outside world. (Finding the references is once again left as an exercise for the student.)
Looking over what I've written above, I see that I haven't addressed even half of what I disagreed with... but I've spent too much time that I should have been sleeping on this already.
Xenophon
P.S. Even when I disagree with zerospinboson, I must say that it is nice to have a thoughtful person on the other side of the discussion.
