[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

That if they choose to have children, they MUST be responsible for their support?

Because you're not punishing the parents when you don't give them anything, you're punishing a next generation of children.

Originally Posted by Xenophon

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.

Hm. It appears I was inaccurate in stating what I meant.
I was more referring to wealth distribution (which might also be a better indicator for intergenerational (and to a lesser extent intragenerational) social mobility. Throwaway lines like "In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth." come to mind (From ISBN 1583227385), or this:

"While households in the top 1.5% of households had incomes exceeding $250,000, 443% above the national median, their incomes were still 2200% lower than those of the top .01% of houseolds. One can therefore conclude that any household, even those with incomes of $250,000 annually are poor when compared to the top .1%, who in turn are poor compared to the top 0.000267%, the top 400 taxpaying households." (while this may not be the biggest disparity in %ages, it probably is in actual income and PP)

Social mobility is a funny thing to measure. For example, do you include an individual's movement over time?

I'm more interested in intergenerational social mobility.
Also, I recall reading that while mobility through the top quintiles is fairly common, moving out of the bottom quintile is nearly impossible, for whatever reason.
more wiki:

"Those under the age of 18 were the most likely to be impoverished. In 2006, the poverty rate for minors in the United States was the highest in the industrialized world, with 21.9% of all minors and 30% of African American minors living below the poverty threshold.1 Moreover, the standard of living for those in the bottom 10% was lower in the U.S. than other developed nations except the United Kingdom, which has the lowest standard of living for impoverished children in the developed world."

combined with this quote to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of census bureau figures:

"The official poverty line today is essentially what it takes in today's dollars, adjusted for inflation, to purchase the same poverty-line level of living that was appropriate to a half century ago, in 1955, for that year furnished the basic data for the formula for the very first poverty measure. Updated thereafter only for inflation, the poverty line lost all connection over time with current consumption patterns of the average family. Quite a few families then didn't have their own private telephone, or a car, or even a mixer in their kitchen... The official poverty line has thus been allowed to fall substantially below a socially decent minimum, even though its intention was to measure such a minimum."

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.

Sure, but by leaving those families to fend for themselves, you're dooming everyone of the next generation that springs from them as well, except those happy few that are motivated enough to know what they want at age 15.

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.

Yeah, but available to how many? It's all well and good, this philantropy thing, but it doesn't really solve systemic issues.

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?

And among which classes are these attitudes most common? those who already made it, or those who feel it's hopeless?
It's not about what I would do as a parent, it's about what a parent living in that bottom quintile (or the bottom 30-35%, if you believe the above quotes) would do to their children.

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!

My whole point with this isn't that it's noble to want to help people, it's that not letting the govt do this means that the efforts will be unreliable for those who want it, and not mandatory for those who don't. Caritas is inefficient, if for no other reason than that it's too small-scale.
Access to primary/secondary education isn't a right, it's a duty.

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.
I note, however, that education outcomes are far more strongly influenced by family attitudes than by the outside world.

Yes, you can. The problem with teens, however, is that their brains aren't even fully grown yet, and specifically those areas of the brain that deal with "persistence", or the strength/will to motivate yourself to do something have not. (Has to do with myelination, which only finishes around your mid-20s.)
Why would you want to create extra barriers for children that probably already come from a bad household (something they can do nothing about)?
Furthermore, and as a last point: access to healthcare is something that benefits all of society, as it will yield a healthier work force. Right now, once you become ill while not holding a job, or if it happens before you get a contract, you're screwed. Oddly, this line of argument is one that has mostly been taken up by your CoCs, and the argument doesn't seem to have made it to the UHC lobby yet. (or they consider it uncaring, or something. anyway) Also, your healthcare system is terribly wasteful (you spend what, 2-3x what we do and still have a population that is unhealthier?), so if that was changed, a large part of the argument against UHC would be invalidated, because you'd be able to afford it at no additional cost compared to the old situation.
Sure, your doctors make more than they do here (probably in part because they have to pay off those silly 100-150k$ debts), and you have so many lawyers because they're being paid by the doctors (although I wonder why there are so many more malpractice suits in the USA than here; are they more incompetent? it boggles the mind :P), but it's not that much more.

Lastly, tertiary education here costs me about €1500 in tuition, and another, say, €4000 in living expenses a year. This is the case for everyone (well, not the living expenses, as I'm probably a bit less spendthrift than most) who gets a bachelor/master here, and even though we're probably not up to the standards of your best universities, we're probably a whole lot better than most of what you have to offer there.

Also, you're welcome