"It's an educational arms race that's leaving many kids
far, far behind."
This isn't a bad thing. It's an educational arms race that is moving the human race forward faster. Communities that have placed emphasis on education early on have not only typically outperformed their peers, but also add a lot to human knowledge.
Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 870 individuals, of
whom 185 - over 21.264% - were Jewish or people of Jewish
descent, although Jews and people of Jewish descent
comprise less than 0.2% of the world's population (or 1 in
every 500 people).
Furthermore, I don't understand the criticism regarding "opportunity hoarding". I don't have children yet, but I hope to have children in a few years once I've built the amount of wealth I would like to have before embarking on that adventure. I don't yet feel like I've built the amount of wealth necessary to provide my children with enough of a competitive advantage to succeed in the 21st century. If I've worked hard to create opportunities for my children, why should I give them away to someone who is not my child?
It's not "rigging the game". Saying that it is rigging the game is a misunderstanding of the game. The game spans multiple generations. The game isn't reset every generation. That's not a game I want to play. My parents were my teammates and my children will also be my teammates.
The criticism of pitfalls out there (e.g. degree mills, payday loans) that entrap and deprive people of opportunities is totally fair, but criticizing the decision to spend the wealth one has earned to their progeny seems like wanting to change the rules of the game.
Wealth inequality itself isn't the problem. Not having access to basic necessities (health, education, sustenance, shelter and the Internet) upon which an individual can start building their wealth is. I think it's reasonable to pay a certain amount to level the playing field at the bottom so those that are determined and principled can reasonably begin creating wealth, but that's a totally different goal compared to reducing wealth inequality. Basic income for example would be a great way to begin meeting needs so individuals can start building wealth.
If wealth inequality were the problem, the 10% should complain about the 1% and the 1% should complain about the 0.1% and the 0.1% should complain about the 0.01%, so on and so forth.
Furthermore, I don't understand the criticism regarding "opportunity hoarding". I don't have children yet, but I hope to have children in a few years once I've built the amount of wealth I would like to have before embarking on that adventure. I don't yet feel like I've built the amount of wealth necessary to provide my children with enough of a competitive advantage to succeed in the 21st century. If I've worked hard to create opportunities for my children, why should I give them away to someone who is not my child?
It's not "rigging the game". Saying that it is rigging the game is a misunderstanding of the game. The game spans multiple generations. The game isn't reset every generation. That's not a game I want to play. My parents were my teammates and my children will also be my teammates.
The criticism of pitfalls out there (e.g. degree mills, payday loans) that entrap and deprive people of opportunities is totally fair, but criticizing the decision to spend the wealth one has earned to their progeny seems like wanting to change the rules of the game.
Wealth inequality itself isn't the problem. Not having access to basic necessities (health, education, sustenance, shelter and the Internet) upon which an individual can start building their wealth is. I think it's reasonable to pay a certain amount to level the playing field at the bottom so those that are determined and principled can reasonably begin creating wealth, but that's a totally different goal compared to reducing wealth inequality. Basic income for example would be a great way to begin meeting needs so individuals can start building wealth.
If wealth inequality were the problem, the 10% should complain about the 1% and the 1% should complain about the 0.1% and the 0.1% should complain about the 0.01%, so on and so forth.