Its true people are not equal in thwir ambition, raw intellivence (people can be intelligent in many waya even not know math but be a creative genius and do well as say a self taught film artist. I kmow some) but its not true the inequality is calibrated by each layer of socioeconomic demographic. Some really smart people Will percolate up through layers of poverty or whatever socioeconomic status by being curious hard working dedicated and iterating on a non self deatructive attitude towards themaelves and the people and communities that will support their growth. In the same vein people born into the top can be lazy entitled not very smart and shuffled into good colleges by helicopter parents managing connections at admissions offices and babystepping and forcing their kids into having the resumes other people garner on their own accord without any authoritarian guidance.
Therefore I think it is important to make sure that we minimise bias and othwr barriers as much as possible to help people who are naturlaly more ambitious experience less unnecessary setbacks. Because trust me as someone who spent the first half of their childhood on welfare there are plenty of barriers people will naturally face for the rest of their life without even considering financial barriers or others.
A lack of social support and being born into self deatructive habits and thught processes can take a lifetime to reverse and if someone can do that when noone else is around to support them has already in my mind shown an extraordinary level of mental strength ambition and dedication, and ultimately theres not a single college degree or career that can be saved if someone doeant have atleast a healthy dose of these things.
This article seems to address equality as if it exists by socioeconomic layer but we should consider it by trait.
An easy way to do this is to track movement. Most famous economists Will tell you what they care about in wealth inequality isnt that there are poor and rich people. They seem to accept there will always be a bell curve (the extremeities of this curve and taxes for each bracket I understand are go for debate and im not saying they shouldnt be) but actually in their data analytics what they are teasing out is movement.
They dont care/see an issue with someone beung poor what they care about is that economics allow for someone to be able to move from poor to rich and vise versa that rich people arent entrenched without any economic accountability to be moved around in the system, and it is particularly that, the fact that the upper echelon has the ability to exponentiate their wealth and that having a basic education in finance and education is mostly closed source and for the elite is what we should be worried about.
Therefore I think it is important to make sure that we minimise bias and othwr barriers as much as possible to help people who are naturlaly more ambitious experience less unnecessary setbacks. Because trust me as someone who spent the first half of their childhood on welfare there are plenty of barriers people will naturally face for the rest of their life without even considering financial barriers or others.
A lack of social support and being born into self deatructive habits and thught processes can take a lifetime to reverse and if someone can do that when noone else is around to support them has already in my mind shown an extraordinary level of mental strength ambition and dedication, and ultimately theres not a single college degree or career that can be saved if someone doeant have atleast a healthy dose of these things.
This article seems to address equality as if it exists by socioeconomic layer but we should consider it by trait.
An easy way to do this is to track movement. Most famous economists Will tell you what they care about in wealth inequality isnt that there are poor and rich people. They seem to accept there will always be a bell curve (the extremeities of this curve and taxes for each bracket I understand are go for debate and im not saying they shouldnt be) but actually in their data analytics what they are teasing out is movement.
They dont care/see an issue with someone beung poor what they care about is that economics allow for someone to be able to move from poor to rich and vise versa that rich people arent entrenched without any economic accountability to be moved around in the system, and it is particularly that, the fact that the upper echelon has the ability to exponentiate their wealth and that having a basic education in finance and education is mostly closed source and for the elite is what we should be worried about.