> We would be a different kind of society were we to match our perception of success and failure with the reality of that success or failure. We don't have to give up our sense of individualism and the respect for personal growth and contribution; we just need to back it up with a recognition of the surrounding factors that are extremely real and highly influential on all our lives. I know we would be a better society if we did.
This is a really good point, and it's something I've been thinking about lately too. Fortunately, I've seen a growing appreciation for the role luck and circumstance has in people's success, particularly with regard to educational opportunities and social class, so hopefully this is starting to change.
I agree, I too have seen signs of respect for externalities more and more. I think it's getting very difficult to ignore in light of the increasingly obvious wealth and opportunity gap in this country.
The opportunity gap is a myth. The real problem is cultural. Too many people believe themselves victims and act accordingly. There is certainly a very low probability of a poor person becoming a millionaire, but there are plenty of people who could go from poor to middle class if they made better decisions. For example, the poor too often gets caught up in the bread and circuses aspects to their own detriment. Do a survey of public housing projects and find out how many people have cable TV. It isn't about the monetary cost of that cable TV but it's a question of the opportunity cost. If someone were to spend two hours watching TV each day (actually a very low number) or if that person were to spend two hours at the public library learning something (for example learning basic coding) then in perhaps a year they might be able to find an entry level tech job. And, with the $30-60 per month they're saving from giving up TV, they could buy a cheap Linux box to start doing some coding on ODesk or eLancr, etc. in fact, most TVs cost as much as a low cost computer. Yet, time and time again you have poor people who can tell you everything about the Kardashians and nothing about HTML. I am not suggesting everyone should be a coder, but as an example it demonstrates a problem of priorities. Barely 8 years ago, I was dead broke, even living in my car for several months. My parents didn't go to college -- we weren't in poverty, however if would have been easy to just follow the path of the lower middle class. Instead, I'm now a software engineer and sometimes entrepreneur making over $200k per year. I make more in a year than my dad made in almost 6 years! I am not special -- anyone who is motivated can do it. The problem is that there is a culture of dependency among much of the poor. Effectively, our society has turned the poor into a bunch of children. Contrast that to the poor in China where entrepreneurism rather than dependency is the norm. American society enables the poor. Our War on Poverty has resulted in no change to poverty rates. Perhaps it's time to stop blaming the rich and start blaming leftist politicians who gain their power from a dependent underclass.
This discussion always makes the libertarian cream of the crop rise to the top of the vat.
You are wrong in nearly every sentence; I don't have the time or patience to convince you, I wasted 5 years of my life arguing with a libertarian already. Please consider the wider systems surrounding each person's condition. They are not fake.
This is a really good point, and it's something I've been thinking about lately too. Fortunately, I've seen a growing appreciation for the role luck and circumstance has in people's success, particularly with regard to educational opportunities and social class, so hopefully this is starting to change.