SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Income inequality in America has been growing rapidly, and is expected to increase [PDF]. While the widening wealth gap is a hot topic in the media and on the campaign trail, there's quite a disconnect between the perceptions of economists and those of the general public.
For instance, surveys show people tend to underestimate the income disparity between the top and bottom 20% of Americans, and overestimate the opportunity for poor individuals to climb the social ladder. Additionally, a majority of adults believe that corporations conduct business fairly despite evidence to the contrary and that the government should not act to reduce income inequality.
Even though inequality is increasing, Americans seem to believe that our social and economic systems work exactly as they should. This perspective has intrigued social scientists for decades. My colleague Andrei Cimpian and I have demonstrated in our recent research that these beliefs that our society is fair and just may take root in the first years of life, stemming from our fundamental desire to explain the world around us.
http://theconversation.com/lifes-not-fair-so-why-do-we-assume-it-is-45981
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 11 2015, @01:58PM
This is a double dichotomy. You can compromise perfect equality of opportunity (think the quintessential Rand fanboy's wet dream) and not end up with with communism. Just because something is beneficial doesn't mean that going to the extremes with it is even better. You can suffer a fatal intoxication from too much water [wikipedia.org].
As long as nobody is acting to specifically hinder you from getting ahead, you are getting all the fairness you can ever expect or ask for out of life.
Income inequality does hinder people of poor upbringing by virtue of guaranteeing premium access to opportunities to those who are much wealthier. In order for a poor person to achieve more than a filthy rich person, he must either be incredibly lucky and stumble into a golden goose (ie Bill Gates), or be creme-de-la-creme of humanity (Stephen Hawking). However, if the talent disparity heavily disfavors the wealthy person, he will still be much more likely to have much more influence on society, despite the fact that the poor person might have benefited society much more in the same position.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 12 2015, @09:02PM
Gates never was a poor kid. The man went to private school [notablebiographies.com]. There, he "began studying computers in the seventh grade". This must have been in 1966, a time when most people hadn't even seen a computer from up close. Talk of opportunities not available to the majority of the population.
Hawkings' parents went to Oxford university [wikipedia.org]. That's not to dismiss the possibility that he would have gotten roughly where he is now otherwise, just that it is not a valid example.
Which leaves us with no examples, really. Disappointing, isn't it?