Japanese 'Prince' Switched at Birth Was Raised a Pauper(npr.org)
npr.org
Japanese 'Prince' Switched at Birth Was Raised a Pauper
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/11/29/247807768/japanese-prince-switched-at-birth-was-raised-a-pauper
7 comments
Hospitals have insurance for malpractice. My friend is an OBGYN so he gets sued every time a baby is born with complications. His view on it is that the family needs money to care for the child and the only way for them to get it is through his malpractice insurance.
But, what do you think the difference in net-worth is between these two men? I don't think the hospital is to blame that one of these children was going to have the best education and the other wouldn't but you have to blame them to get the insurance payout.
Plus, maybe the truck driver will do something like start a scholarship. In that case, I'd hope he gets much more than $300k.
But, what do you think the difference in net-worth is between these two men? I don't think the hospital is to blame that one of these children was going to have the best education and the other wouldn't but you have to blame them to get the insurance payout.
Plus, maybe the truck driver will do something like start a scholarship. In that case, I'd hope he gets much more than $300k.
>It's a lousy hand to be dealt, but I don't see how he deserves to take 317k from a charitable organization over it.
Most US hospitals are non-profit "charitable organizations"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital
They should all be allowed to mix up children with no penalty? Odd stance you have there. I'm sure most Americans will disagree with you.
Most US hospitals are non-profit "charitable organizations"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital
They should all be allowed to mix up children with no penalty? Odd stance you have there. I'm sure most Americans will disagree with you.
I would argue that the Japanese justice system has either to accept that the hospital violated this man's right to enjoy his parents' money, or to rule against inheritances at all.
I am tempted to agree with you, but put yourself in his shoes. Being poor is a trap that you cannot get out of by yourself, it is incredibly frustrating. Along comes his ticket out of shitsville and you expect him to just pass?
Oh, I don't blame him for trying for it. Anyone would. I just don't know if he should have been awarded money based on not attending private schools that most people wouldn't have been able to attend anyhow.
I think that's just what he hung the case on because it had quantifiable value. How else do you quantify a life of missed opportunities?
Uh, this is just a PR stunt for the movie at the bottom, right? The court report link is broken...
I searched asahi.com for the article and still can't find it. I did find the below, which suggests it may be real, but given how little is available on the English web I'm now skeptical like you. Perhaps it's better sourced on Japanese language websites though.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/12/28/national/media-...
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/12/28/national/media-...
[deleted]
He ends up a 60 year old truck driver and the person he was switched with is the president of a real estate company - and meanwhile we pretend western society is mostly meritocratic.
It seems pretty obvious that it usually takes more than one generation's effort to gain certain things in this world. My wife and I work very hard so we can afford to optimize the development of our children as best we can so they can eventually do better than we did. My parents did the same. My parent's parents did the same. If people struggle raising their children, then their children will be at a disadvantage. I guess you could say it's a kind of multi-generational meritocracy. Some people seem to imply that this reveals a flaw in our society, but I am having trouble seeing better systemic alternatives. Can someone please help me understand?
It's wrong that your personal success depends on a long chain of ancestry that you have no control over.
Your success should depend on your intrinsic merits, which every individual should have an equal opportunity to assess and develop for themselves.
Rich people are the same as poor people at birth, they just have more money.
...uh, is this a controversial opinion? I'm confused.
Your success should depend on your intrinsic merits, which every individual should have an equal opportunity to assess and develop for themselves.
Rich people are the same as poor people at birth, they just have more money.
...uh, is this a controversial opinion? I'm confused.
Highly. Because the corrollary to what you are saying is that parents “shouldn’t” do the best they can for their children.
It’s not wrong at all to work hard so that your children have a better life. For many people, this is the singular reason they work so hard!
I can only aspire to give my children the privilege of a first class education and upbringing, as my father did for me. It’s only recent political movements which try to cast this as something to be ashamed of, or something that needs to be counteracted, and I think many people rightly have a problem with that.
It’s not wrong at all to work hard so that your children have a better life. For many people, this is the singular reason they work so hard!
I can only aspire to give my children the privilege of a first class education and upbringing, as my father did for me. It’s only recent political movements which try to cast this as something to be ashamed of, or something that needs to be counteracted, and I think many people rightly have a problem with that.
I guess I can see why people would have that reaction as a knee-jerk. But shouldn't we strive for a world where everyone's children have the privilege of education and social standing, and parents can focus on spending time with them, teaching them empathy and understanding, and generally experiencing life with them?
As opposed to one where the knives are out and people think that their children's entire futures must come at the cost of someone else's? And what does that attitude teach the children?
As opposed to one where the knives are out and people think that their children's entire futures must come at the cost of someone else's? And what does that attitude teach the children?
It all comes down to how you propose going about achieving that.
As long as people have bank accounts and can accumulate wealth, there will be a small percentage of people with savings and large percentage of people without. You can take money from people who have and give it to people who don’t, and we do quite a lot of that already.
As long as there are private schools which you can pay to send your children, and tutors your can hire to help them learn, and housekeepers you can hire to have more time to spend working or with family.... then those people who got high paying jobs and worked hard and saved money will be able to give their children a significant advantage in the world, in theory leading to higher functioning, higher achieving offspring.
When you consider that the top 1% of taxpayers pay more than the bottom 90% combined, I think that’s far from this “knives out” picture you are painting. The top 1% very literally have their wallets out to pay it forward.
As long as people have bank accounts and can accumulate wealth, there will be a small percentage of people with savings and large percentage of people without. You can take money from people who have and give it to people who don’t, and we do quite a lot of that already.
As long as there are private schools which you can pay to send your children, and tutors your can hire to help them learn, and housekeepers you can hire to have more time to spend working or with family.... then those people who got high paying jobs and worked hard and saved money will be able to give their children a significant advantage in the world, in theory leading to higher functioning, higher achieving offspring.
When you consider that the top 1% of taxpayers pay more than the bottom 90% combined, I think that’s far from this “knives out” picture you are painting. The top 1% very literally have their wallets out to pay it forward.
However the top 1% also earn more income that the 90% of the bottom combined, doesn't it make sense that they pay equivalent amounts of tax? Paying a similar proportion is not exactly the same as "having their wallets out".
And I understand that if you are in that 1% then there is a lot of tax being paid… but there is even more being kept.
But you are 100% correct, there are many ways to transfer "wealth" from one generation to the next, inheritances are not the only way to do it. All of what you mention are absolutely ways that you can use the wealth of the parents to increase the chances of the child. You just need to look at the kids of the rulers in the old communist states to see that! And indeed, even in countries with high inheritance taxes, the richest families tend not to change much inter-generationally, I suspect largely for the reasons that you raise.
And I understand that if you are in that 1% then there is a lot of tax being paid… but there is even more being kept.
But you are 100% correct, there are many ways to transfer "wealth" from one generation to the next, inheritances are not the only way to do it. All of what you mention are absolutely ways that you can use the wealth of the parents to increase the chances of the child. You just need to look at the kids of the rulers in the old communist states to see that! And indeed, even in countries with high inheritance taxes, the richest families tend not to change much inter-generationally, I suspect largely for the reasons that you raise.
Just in case you’re curious;
The top 1% of earners account for ~20% of all income but pay about 40% of all income taxes. The bottom 90% account for about 50% of all income but pay about 30% of all income taxes.
45% of Americans pay no (or negative) Federal tax.
So yes, I think even if it’s a constant percentage (which it’s not) I do respect the top 1% of earners for their massive contribution to our tax base. I don’t personally believe the government has a moral authority to a progressively larger percentage of a person’s incone. And I do believe a person who works harder to earn a larger paycheck is absolutely subsidizing Americans who pay no Federal tax at all, and I’m very thankful for the 1% who pay 40% of the load.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...
The top 1% of earners account for ~20% of all income but pay about 40% of all income taxes. The bottom 90% account for about 50% of all income but pay about 30% of all income taxes.
45% of Americans pay no (or negative) Federal tax.
So yes, I think even if it’s a constant percentage (which it’s not) I do respect the top 1% of earners for their massive contribution to our tax base. I don’t personally believe the government has a moral authority to a progressively larger percentage of a person’s incone. And I do believe a person who works harder to earn a larger paycheck is absolutely subsidizing Americans who pay no Federal tax at all, and I’m very thankful for the 1% who pay 40% of the load.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...
> And indeed, even in countries with high inheritance taxes, the richest families tend not to change much inter-generationally
inheritance taxes are designed to restrict upward mobility on a timespan of generations. of course the richest families don't change much, the cost of becoming a "richest family" is much higher than the cost of staying a "richest family."
inheritance taxes are designed to restrict upward mobility on a timespan of generations. of course the richest families don't change much, the cost of becoming a "richest family" is much higher than the cost of staying a "richest family."
IMO this is a largely American POV: I'm rich so my children are _allowed_ to have a good education, you are not, so your children _must_ have a poor education. This is perhaps an extreme restatement of your view? But in many countries, a good education is considered the right of every child.
That is _not_ to say that as a parent you cannot make material changes in the chances that your children have. You can afford to give them more attention at home. You can afford to give them a safe and supportive environment in which to grow up in. You can (potentially) afford for them to do an unpaid internship, or even to give them a job in your business where they don't need to fight with a million other candidates for a job with real growth and learning potential.
None of this requires that you leave them an inheritance worth millions. And none of it requires that your kids must have a better school than everyone else. Money already confers so many advantages, schools don't need to accentuate them.
That is _not_ to say that as a parent you cannot make material changes in the chances that your children have. You can afford to give them more attention at home. You can afford to give them a safe and supportive environment in which to grow up in. You can (potentially) afford for them to do an unpaid internship, or even to give them a job in your business where they don't need to fight with a million other candidates for a job with real growth and learning potential.
None of this requires that you leave them an inheritance worth millions. And none of it requires that your kids must have a better school than everyone else. Money already confers so many advantages, schools don't need to accentuate them.
No I don’t think that’s an accurate (even if extreme) restatement at all. I said nothing at all about “allowed” or “must”. All children in the US are guaranteed access to a free public school education. And we spend quite a bit of money on providing that service! I went to public school K-12 and my children are going to public school — albeit in a wealthy suburb with a top rated school system.
The question is simple — is it legal to send your child to a private school? Is it legal to send your child to summer school and provide them tutors? If it remains legal to do that, then parents with the time and money and inclination will be able to provide a better and more personalized education for their children.
Keep in mind that when sending your children to private school, you still pay the same taxes and you are freeing up resources at the public school for other children. However I believe studies have shown when the highest achieving students leave the rest of the classroom performs worse without them, so it could still be a net negative for the public school.
The real privilege is the time parents spend with their children at home reinforcing the learning they did at school and providing the positive environment and encouragement a child needs to continue striving to learn. That typically requires a two-parent family that isn’t in financial turmoil.
The question is simple — is it legal to send your child to a private school? Is it legal to send your child to summer school and provide them tutors? If it remains legal to do that, then parents with the time and money and inclination will be able to provide a better and more personalized education for their children.
Keep in mind that when sending your children to private school, you still pay the same taxes and you are freeing up resources at the public school for other children. However I believe studies have shown when the highest achieving students leave the rest of the classroom performs worse without them, so it could still be a net negative for the public school.
The real privilege is the time parents spend with their children at home reinforcing the learning they did at school and providing the positive environment and encouragement a child needs to continue striving to learn. That typically requires a two-parent family that isn’t in financial turmoil.
> intrinsic
How exactly do you expect intrinsic merits to arise if not via your ancestry? Merits don't materialize out of thin air; and even if they did, how exactly would that be fair?
A lottery is more fair than corruption and bribes, but it's still a lottery. There's nothing inherently virtuous about it.
How exactly do you expect intrinsic merits to arise if not via your ancestry? Merits don't materialize out of thin air; and even if they did, how exactly would that be fair?
A lottery is more fair than corruption and bribes, but it's still a lottery. There's nothing inherently virtuous about it.
I don't buy into the whole 'pure bloodlines' thing.
It didn't work out too well for aristocracies; 'pure' is potentially another word for 'inbred'. And with the way things are now and have been for centuries, it is money rather than merits that are getting people ahead from square one, so I don't see how you can argue in good faith that ancestry is necessarily as strongly responsible for successful traits as it currently appears to be.
It didn't work out too well for aristocracies; 'pure' is potentially another word for 'inbred'. And with the way things are now and have been for centuries, it is money rather than merits that are getting people ahead from square one, so I don't see how you can argue in good faith that ancestry is necessarily as strongly responsible for successful traits as it currently appears to be.
The point is, it's arbitrary either way.
The thread on "HN Ignore Downvotes CSS" reminded me that often the initial reaction may be negative, but over time if the comment is good it will go net positive. Sit back and enjoy the ride--or at least I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on one (or maybe two?) initial votes in the first couple of minutes. And keep in mind that the HN population is big enough that there will be noise, and more so as the topics become more contentious.
But where do intrinsic merits come from? Prenatal nutrition, genetics, role models who taught you "critical thinking" and good character? It's not controversial so much as incoherent.
" My wife and I work very hard so we can afford to optimize the development of our children as best we can so they can eventually do better than we did. My parents did the same. My parent's parents did the same."
yes, they all did... until they didn't and then you are stuck at the bottom because your parents or their parents failed.
yes, they all did... until they didn't and then you are stuck at the bottom because your parents or their parents failed.
You may be stuck, but in many such societies you can do things to give your children a chance to get unstuck.
A society in which you're stuck by virtue of your parent's choices doesn't seem like a meritocracy at all. Why not just call it a "low mobility aristocracy" or a "bounded caste system" or something of the like?
because in an aristocracy or caste system you're truly stuck and your descendants are as well. Not so in the society we live in.
But it shouldn't be that way. You shouldn't be stuck in the first place.
>Some people seem to imply that this reveals a flaw in our society, but I am having trouble seeing better alternatives. Can someone please help me understand?
A society which doesn't massively privilege the children of the wealthy? What are you having trouble with? We just reduce the influence of class and wealth.
A society which doesn't massively privilege the children of the wealthy? What are you having trouble with? We just reduce the influence of class and wealth.
> We just reduce the influence of class and wealth.
How?
Since the dawn of time, people have been split into rich and poor. It seems to be the most persistent bifurcation in the history of human civilization. Even in a society like the USSR, where there was little to no private property ownership, material wealth was controlled by a small cohort of politically-connected individuals who passed their influence to their children.
The best antidote to wealth inequality has been criminality and chaos - plagues, world wars - which seem to be on the decline.
It's easy to target a few thousand billionaires and apply some estate tax to recapture fortunes upon death. But the real reservoir of generational inequality - as you imply it to be - seems more likely to be the hundreds of thousands of upper class families who pass on intensive amounts of educational, cultural, social, and financial benefits to their kids in ways that are harder to track and harder to crack down on, and which no amount of Government programs for the poor are likely to replicate.
With that in mind, what practical steps can you take to meaningfully reduce the influence of class and wealth?
How?
Since the dawn of time, people have been split into rich and poor. It seems to be the most persistent bifurcation in the history of human civilization. Even in a society like the USSR, where there was little to no private property ownership, material wealth was controlled by a small cohort of politically-connected individuals who passed their influence to their children.
The best antidote to wealth inequality has been criminality and chaos - plagues, world wars - which seem to be on the decline.
It's easy to target a few thousand billionaires and apply some estate tax to recapture fortunes upon death. But the real reservoir of generational inequality - as you imply it to be - seems more likely to be the hundreds of thousands of upper class families who pass on intensive amounts of educational, cultural, social, and financial benefits to their kids in ways that are harder to track and harder to crack down on, and which no amount of Government programs for the poor are likely to replicate.
With that in mind, what practical steps can you take to meaningfully reduce the influence of class and wealth?
> It's easy to target a few thousand billionaires and apply some estate tax to recapture fortunes upon death (and maybe we should do this).
That wouldn't even help.
For example: George Soros. Came from a wealthy family. Utterly destitute after the war. And now he's rich.
Some people simply have that talent, and they pass it on to their kids, both in education, and in genes.
> With that in mind, what practical steps can you take to meaningfully reduce the influence of class and wealth?
Are you sure it's "class and wealth" and not intelligence?
That wouldn't even help.
For example: George Soros. Came from a wealthy family. Utterly destitute after the war. And now he's rich.
Some people simply have that talent, and they pass it on to their kids, both in education, and in genes.
> With that in mind, what practical steps can you take to meaningfully reduce the influence of class and wealth?
Are you sure it's "class and wealth" and not intelligence?
> Are you sure it's "class and wealth" and not intelligence?
I think intelligence is the most important prerequisite, at which point class exerts influence, and then finally wealth - self-made wealth - becomes a reflection of how much of a person's ambition is focused on that area. And luck, of course.
This raises the question of what to do about pre-implantation genetic testing and gene therapies once the genes influencing intelligence can be identified and selected (and eventually modified). I can see a future in which everyone who can afford it reproduces via IVF in order to leverage gene selection, and it's considered socially awkward among the upper class to have a naturally-conceived child (as in, you don't care enough about your child to pay for the best genes). Perhaps when it comes to discussions of inequality, "we ain't seen nothing yet".
I think intelligence is the most important prerequisite, at which point class exerts influence, and then finally wealth - self-made wealth - becomes a reflection of how much of a person's ambition is focused on that area. And luck, of course.
This raises the question of what to do about pre-implantation genetic testing and gene therapies once the genes influencing intelligence can be identified and selected (and eventually modified). I can see a future in which everyone who can afford it reproduces via IVF in order to leverage gene selection, and it's considered socially awkward among the upper class to have a naturally-conceived child (as in, you don't care enough about your child to pay for the best genes). Perhaps when it comes to discussions of inequality, "we ain't seen nothing yet".
yes it is class and wealth. how could you even begin to think otherwise? do you truly think everyone who is rich is just 'smarter' than all other humans?
if so, what particular mechanisms exist for some truly idiotic child born with a trust of $1M, $10M, or $100M to lose their wealth?
> For example: George Soros. Came from a wealthy family. Utterly destitute after the war. And now he's rich.
So he was likely aided by his class, which was never lost when he lost his wealth.
this whole charade that all billionaires in the entire world are geniuses who came from the bottom rungs of society is just a story to instill hope on those ambitious enough to believe there exists meritocratic societies. the media loves to talk about 'new money' billionaires who are, inarguably, quite intellectual (elon, zuckerburg, jobs, etc) - it's just so less sexy to focus on the much larger number of billionaires who just inherited it all...
let me guess, next you're going to tell me that everyone who is a celebrity movie star, tv actor, artist, and photographer is just the most talented in their respective fields and class and wealth had nothing to do with it?
if so, what particular mechanisms exist for some truly idiotic child born with a trust of $1M, $10M, or $100M to lose their wealth?
> For example: George Soros. Came from a wealthy family. Utterly destitute after the war. And now he's rich.
So he was likely aided by his class, which was never lost when he lost his wealth.
this whole charade that all billionaires in the entire world are geniuses who came from the bottom rungs of society is just a story to instill hope on those ambitious enough to believe there exists meritocratic societies. the media loves to talk about 'new money' billionaires who are, inarguably, quite intellectual (elon, zuckerburg, jobs, etc) - it's just so less sexy to focus on the much larger number of billionaires who just inherited it all...
let me guess, next you're going to tell me that everyone who is a celebrity movie star, tv actor, artist, and photographer is just the most talented in their respective fields and class and wealth had nothing to do with it?
> if so, what particular mechanisms exist for some truly idiotic child born with a trust of $1M, $10M, or $100M to lose their wealth?
The mechanism of humans to spend and consume frivolously. I know plenty of people who are simply uneducated on financial matters and blew through trusts of a few million dollars thanks to accountants and trustees who enabled them to spend in excess of a sustainable withdrawal rate. They aren't too different from lottery winners, many of whom end up broke. That's why I take the view that class and culture > wealth until you start to get into the nine figures range where wealth becomes more self-sustaining, although even then if you look at the top echelon of athletes and celebrities you see similar examples of self-destruction.
The mechanism of humans to spend and consume frivolously. I know plenty of people who are simply uneducated on financial matters and blew through trusts of a few million dollars thanks to accountants and trustees who enabled them to spend in excess of a sustainable withdrawal rate. They aren't too different from lottery winners, many of whom end up broke. That's why I take the view that class and culture > wealth until you start to get into the nine figures range where wealth becomes more self-sustaining, although even then if you look at the top echelon of athletes and celebrities you see similar examples of self-destruction.
The mechanisms that affect newly minted, publicly exposed figures (celebrities, athletes, and lottery winners) is largely predatory investors and money managers. Predators are a lot more successful at taking advantage of poorly educated athletes, etc. Frivolous consumption, which certainly can affect persons of any financial upbringing, is unlikely to have any material impact on those who simply inherit money and do nothing else of value to society. I believe consumerism could be impactful to truly idiotic persons of inherited wealth (with an equally classless, idiotic family surrounding them). A trust fund baby of average intelligence, brought up in a family practicing at least upper-middle class social norms, would likely be perfectly fine.
> That's why I take the view that class and culture > wealth until you start to get into the nine figures
Class, culture, and wealth form symbiosis much before fortunes of 9 figures.
Personally I believe proper taxation structures are much more effective a method to normalize against inherited wealth.
> That's why I take the view that class and culture > wealth until you start to get into the nine figures
Class, culture, and wealth form symbiosis much before fortunes of 9 figures.
Personally I believe proper taxation structures are much more effective a method to normalize against inherited wealth.
> Frivolous consumption, which certainly can affect persons of any financial upbringing, is unlikely to have any material impact on those who simply inherit money and do nothing else of value to society.
It's just a function of the numbers, isn't it?
A trust fund has $1 million in assets, 1% fees, and beneficiary withdraws $50k (5%) per year. Based on the historical data at firecalc.com, within 30 years, there's a 50% chance the fund has hit $0.
Just in fairness to the non-idiots who depleted their low single digit million trust funds, it's been much more the rule than the exception.
It's just a function of the numbers, isn't it?
A trust fund has $1 million in assets, 1% fees, and beneficiary withdraws $50k (5%) per year. Based on the historical data at firecalc.com, within 30 years, there's a 50% chance the fund has hit $0.
Just in fairness to the non-idiots who depleted their low single digit million trust funds, it's been much more the rule than the exception.
So they might have to go work for Goldman Sachs for a few years after graduating from Wharton, but that's not too big a burden in order to avoid bankruptcy.
Separate society into 'spheres.' So for example I'm of the mind that education and healthcare should be totally separate from wealth. You shouldn't be able to buy a better education for your kid and you shouldn't be able to buy better healthcare for yourself. We should all be 'in the same boat' so to speak. In this way the wealthy have to advocate for universal improvements instead of using their wealth to opt out of bad systems.
> You shouldn't be able to buy a better education for your kid
Doesn't this miss the fact that a large amount of education - perhaps the majority of young childhood education - occurs at home, and is influenced by family environment?
How does the Government recreate a two parent household with the time and resources to cook healthy dinners and spend hours every night reading to their children, for children who are essentially "on their own" once they leave school? Is it even reasonable to expect this to be possible (i.e. reduce or replace the influence of families with Government or third-party involvement)?
Doesn't this miss the fact that a large amount of education - perhaps the majority of young childhood education - occurs at home, and is influenced by family environment?
How does the Government recreate a two parent household with the time and resources to cook healthy dinners and spend hours every night reading to their children, for children who are essentially "on their own" once they leave school? Is it even reasonable to expect this to be possible (i.e. reduce or replace the influence of families with Government or third-party involvement)?
>Doesn't this miss the fact that a large amount of education - perhaps the majority of young childhood education - occurs at home, and is influenced by family environment?
Yes. But despite the fact that it misses this it does capture another huge portion of privilege.
>Is it even reasonable to expect this to be possible (i.e. reduce or replace the influence of families with Government or third-party involvement)?
No. Which is why I'm not advocating that... I'm not even sure how you could read that from my comments. You and the few other replys here seem to think I'm Stalin or pursuing something that is 'perfect fairness.' The original question was just about reducing the influence of wealth, not eliminating it entirely.
You'll forgive me for the long wait time, I got rate-limited and couldn't reply for several hours.
Yes. But despite the fact that it misses this it does capture another huge portion of privilege.
>Is it even reasonable to expect this to be possible (i.e. reduce or replace the influence of families with Government or third-party involvement)?
No. Which is why I'm not advocating that... I'm not even sure how you could read that from my comments. You and the few other replys here seem to think I'm Stalin or pursuing something that is 'perfect fairness.' The original question was just about reducing the influence of wealth, not eliminating it entirely.
You'll forgive me for the long wait time, I got rate-limited and couldn't reply for several hours.
You can't immunize a system to economic and political influence by moving more of it from the economic to the political sphere.
The example of the USSR was already cited, the rich were still rich even though being "wealthy" _formally_ wasn't a thing.
People instead played political games to win positions that brought benefits from the State. Most workers aspired to reach a position that brought with it car ownership.
All of this serves to make the delivering peoples' needs and desires more inefficient and more purely decided by social and political power than by someone's ability to contribute to society.
The example of the USSR was already cited, the rich were still rich even though being "wealthy" _formally_ wasn't a thing.
People instead played political games to win positions that brought benefits from the State. Most workers aspired to reach a position that brought with it car ownership.
All of this serves to make the delivering peoples' needs and desires more inefficient and more purely decided by social and political power than by someone's ability to contribute to society.
How do you propose to prevent parents from teaching their children?
You also have a built in assumption that education is what causes this success, when I posit it's the result of intelligence, which is the actual driver (and is seen in better results from education).
You also have a built in assumption that education is what causes this success, when I posit it's the result of intelligence, which is the actual driver (and is seen in better results from education).
So instead of a multi-generational meritocracy, you want everyone in the same generation to have the same resources starting out? How do we determine the best resources for each generation? How do we distribute the wealth? How do we keep parents motivated to work when their main motivation is to provide a better life for their children?
Multi-generational meritocracy sounds antithetical to post-enlightenment thinking. It sounds like someone sneezed while saying "aristocracy".
Calling multi-generational meritocracy the same as aristocracy is a misunderstanding of what these two words mean. Yes, societies are messy, and what happens in one societal structure can sometimes happen in another, but that does not mean that the underlying rules defining the two are equivalent.
[deleted]
[deleted]
that's been tried multiple times (communism/socialism) with generally unpleasant outcomes.
What? Reducing the influence of wealth in a country is not the same as 1) having the state own all property or 2) a state ran for workers
There are numerous ways to reduce that influence without flipping the entirety of our capitalist economic system.
There are numerous ways to reduce that influence without flipping the entirety of our capitalist economic system.
We seem to be trying them without much luck. To be honest I don't really care where the ceiling is, as long as the floor is reasonable.
As far as our success is concerned, I am aligned entirely with you. I think radical change is necessary to slow down the self-destructive capitalist machine that is the U.S.
Unfortunately so many people have been influenced by McCarthyian propaganda that whenever the topic of social and economic reform in the U.S. comes up they simply scream about Stalin and Mao and that is that.
Unfortunately so many people have been influenced by McCarthyian propaganda that whenever the topic of social and economic reform in the U.S. comes up they simply scream about Stalin and Mao and that is that.
This story doesn't undermine the idea of meritocracy.
A rich child may end up a rich adult and a poor child a poor adult purely because of nepotism, with the two individuals being roughly the same in terms of skills and abilities.
But another explanation is that the rich child ends up a rich adult because his rich parents actually instill more merit in the child and he ends up with more skills and abilities.
In the latter case the standard could still be meritocratic.
I think there's truth on both sides - things like growing up in an intact family, or learning the value of thrift, are going to inevitably lead to better outcomes for the child - but I think there's also a whole lot of unmeritocratic signaling (who you know, where you went to school, etc) and on the reverse side, measures to prevent people from getting ahead (regressive taxation, poor schools, etc)
A rich child may end up a rich adult and a poor child a poor adult purely because of nepotism, with the two individuals being roughly the same in terms of skills and abilities.
But another explanation is that the rich child ends up a rich adult because his rich parents actually instill more merit in the child and he ends up with more skills and abilities.
In the latter case the standard could still be meritocratic.
I think there's truth on both sides - things like growing up in an intact family, or learning the value of thrift, are going to inevitably lead to better outcomes for the child - but I think there's also a whole lot of unmeritocratic signaling (who you know, where you went to school, etc) and on the reverse side, measures to prevent people from getting ahead (regressive taxation, poor schools, etc)
>But another explanation is that the rich child ends up a rich adult because his rich parents actually instill more merit in the child and he ends up with more skills and abilities.
How is that in itself not a form of privilege? is it different to attending an elite school?
How is that in itself not a form of privilege? is it different to attending an elite school?
It can be both privilege and meritocracy. Think of the movie Gattaca. The people with enhanced genes were privileged from the wealth of their parents, but also genuinely better in some areas because of that. The same thing if parents are able to afford tutors, or to spend time helping their child out in homework they will get better grades and do better. The key to remember is that a meritocracy is not fair.
> The key to remember is that a meritocracy is not fair.
I think you've just completely upended the meaning of meritocracy to suite your argument.
Next you'll be arguing lootboxes make games more fair.
>Think of the movie Gattaca
Was literally a movie about unfair privilege. people in it were granted privileges and opportunities based on their genes whether they had accomplished something or not.
I think you've just completely upended the meaning of meritocracy to suite your argument.
Next you'll be arguing lootboxes make games more fair.
>Think of the movie Gattaca
Was literally a movie about unfair privilege. people in it were granted privileges and opportunities based on their genes whether they had accomplished something or not.
Can you explain what you mean? This definition for meritocracy: "government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability." says nothing about fairness. If people are able to gain increased ability based on privilege than you have an unfair meritocracy. Since it is pretty clear that you can indeed do this, through parental involvement, tutoring, nutrition, better medical care, etc. than it follows that meritocracy is not fair.
There's lots of definitions, I think this one is probably closer to what we think of when discussing meritocracy:
an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/meritocracy
an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/meritocracy
There is still no conflict though, so long as class privilege and wealth can be transformed into ability and talent.
Well no because the definition is 'rather than class privilege or wealth.' Transforming wealth into ability and talent is class privilege.
If ability comes from wealth, it's still ability. I'd read "rather than class privilege or wealth" to mean that those things aren't considered merits in and of themselves, except to the degree that they can help someone achieve their full potential.
Meritocracy is very much in conflict with equality. Meritocracy means you are judged on your merit. It is completely orthogonal to a nature-vs-nurture argument.
For example, this is exactly the sort of debate we've been having in Singapore, which prides itself on being a highly 'meritocratic', which consequently people have criticized for exacerbating income/social inequality.
For example, this is exactly the sort of debate we've been having in Singapore, which prides itself on being a highly 'meritocratic', which consequently people have criticized for exacerbating income/social inequality.
Equality vs equity.
Most people intend the latter when they mean the former (at least from usage).
Most people intend the latter when they mean the former (at least from usage).
Just because a system is meritocratic doesn't mean it's just in some broader sense. It just means that the behaviors that society defines as being worthy of merit are consistently rewarded. It doesn't say anything about how or why people are acculturated in a certain way.
>In the latter case the standard could still be meritocratic.
This is a logical escape hatch of meritocracy because you can push money into services towards training the child, but the source of that money isn't self-owned by the child. It's essentially meritocracy alchemy where money=merits, but that undermines the idea of meritocracy in the first place.
This is a logical escape hatch of meritocracy because you can push money into services towards training the child, but the source of that money isn't self-owned by the child. It's essentially meritocracy alchemy where money=merits, but that undermines the idea of meritocracy in the first place.
[deleted]
If your merit is dependent on your parents instilling that merit in you it's hard to say it's merit at all, it had nothing to do with you, just the environment you happened to be born into.
If merit is independent of your upbringing - the only thing that remains is your genetics.
If you are suggesting some are predisposed at birth to be better than others, which is obviously out of their control, then is a meritocracy even a goal we wish to achieve?
If you are suggesting some are predisposed at birth to be better than others, which is obviously out of their control, then is a meritocracy even a goal we wish to achieve?
I can't go all the way to luck egalitarianism, I'll admit that. But I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It seems to me that a "meritocracy" where merit is primarily earned by being born into a wealthy family is just smuggling aristocracy into the public consciousness under a nicer name. I think that is a goal that society definitely wishes not to achieve and to be honest it doesn't seem much like a meritocracy at all.
> But I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater
You're right, I was intentionally being dichotomous.
> a "meritocracy" where merit is primarily earned by being born into a wealthy family is just smuggling aristocracy into the public consciousness
I agree, to some extent - but would also suggest that this is entirely inevitable. It's a natural desire to ensure your children have the best possible future. This can be accomplished through many means - here we are talking specifically about passing down wealth, or teaching discipline.
Should something be done to stop this? It's at least possible for passing down wealth.
Some would argue that there should be no such thing as inheritance - others would argue that such a policy would ruin the economy, by removing a large motivation of productivity.
I personally think the best a society can do is provide to the best of it's ability, equal access to education - and still permit generational wealth.
You're right, I was intentionally being dichotomous.
> a "meritocracy" where merit is primarily earned by being born into a wealthy family is just smuggling aristocracy into the public consciousness
I agree, to some extent - but would also suggest that this is entirely inevitable. It's a natural desire to ensure your children have the best possible future. This can be accomplished through many means - here we are talking specifically about passing down wealth, or teaching discipline.
Should something be done to stop this? It's at least possible for passing down wealth.
Some would argue that there should be no such thing as inheritance - others would argue that such a policy would ruin the economy, by removing a large motivation of productivity.
I personally think the best a society can do is provide to the best of it's ability, equal access to education - and still permit generational wealth.
>meanwhile we pretend western society is mostly meritocratic
The poor kid was raised by a single mother in a 100sqft apartment. You don't expect a prize winning plant if you never water it, right?
This story says nothing of the merits of the rich kid. You seem to assume the rich kid is a layabout wastrel, because he was born from a poor lineage.
I think the mother of this kid would have been conflicted if she were alive. She wanted the best for her offspring, and he got it, but not due to her efforts. Your jaded prejudice has derailed what other boards might have made into a thoughtful discussion.
The poor kid was raised by a single mother in a 100sqft apartment. You don't expect a prize winning plant if you never water it, right?
This story says nothing of the merits of the rich kid. You seem to assume the rich kid is a layabout wastrel, because he was born from a poor lineage.
I think the mother of this kid would have been conflicted if she were alive. She wanted the best for her offspring, and he got it, but not due to her efforts. Your jaded prejudice has derailed what other boards might have made into a thoughtful discussion.
Please, tell us all how you really feel about the poor. Do you think it's the curse of a bad mother when she is no-fault evicted and they live in the streets for a stint of time?
sounds like you want the caste system and the untouchables back.
sounds like you want the caste system and the untouchables back.
>Please, tell us all how you really feel about the poor.
The poor are naturally disadvantaged. That's an uncontroversial statement.
The poor are naturally disadvantaged. That's an uncontroversial statement.
> The poor are naturally disadvantaged. That's an uncontroversial statement.
“The poor are disadvantaged” is an uncontroversial statement; adding the “naturally” part in makes it far less uncontroversial.
“The poor are disadvantaged” is an uncontroversial statement; adding the “naturally” part in makes it far less uncontroversial.
Poor animals don't fare as well in nature either. Monkeys who have a fig tree will do better than the monkeys who are forced to scavenge. They will defend their tree, because they recognize the value of the resource. They will likely defend it successfully, because they are well fed.
Wealth is a positive feedback loop. There's really no controversy in that either. "The rich get richer"
Wealth is a positive feedback loop. There's really no controversy in that either. "The rich get richer"
> and meanwhile we pretend western society is mostly meritocratic.
Japanese society is much less meritocratic than US society. They prize conformity far far more than the US/Europe does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wa_(Japanese_culture)
This result is actually entirely expected given their culture.
Japanese society is much less meritocratic than US society. They prize conformity far far more than the US/Europe does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wa_(Japanese_culture)
This result is actually entirely expected given their culture.
Conformity has nothing to do meritocracy?
Besides I know that mobility and meritocracy don't map perfectly but Japan is actually a society with more intergenerational mobility than the US and about half of Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve#/media/File...
Besides I know that mobility and meritocracy don't map perfectly but Japan is actually a society with more intergenerational mobility than the US and about half of Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve#/media/File...
The "intergenerational earnings elasticity" cited in that curve work as follows [1]: "In a society with equal opportunity, a father's income would have no relation to that of his son (a correlation of 0). On the other hand, a country where jobs and income transition from one generation to the next would have a correlation of 1."
So if we define "intergenerational mobility" as the economic mobility of a family over multiple generations, Japan is actually on the lower end, as there's less correlation between your parent's occupation/wealth and your own. As an example, your father could work hard and gain a higher economic position, but in Japan that advantage has a smaller effect on you and your potential.
I understand there's a fair argument on the other side where you could have more power to determine your own future, but I doubt that's directly correlated to your parents' ability to provide opportunity and a better life; unless we assume a zero-sum game.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/intergenerational-earnings-el...
So if we define "intergenerational mobility" as the economic mobility of a family over multiple generations, Japan is actually on the lower end, as there's less correlation between your parent's occupation/wealth and your own. As an example, your father could work hard and gain a higher economic position, but in Japan that advantage has a smaller effect on you and your potential.
I understand there's a fair argument on the other side where you could have more power to determine your own future, but I doubt that's directly correlated to your parents' ability to provide opportunity and a better life; unless we assume a zero-sum game.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/intergenerational-earnings-el...
>So if we define "intergenerational mobility" as the economic mobility of a family over multiple generations, Japan is actually on the lower end, as there's less correlation between your parent's occupation/wealth and your own.
Less correlation between between your parent's wealth and your wealth is mobility, I think you're confused.
>As an example, your father could work hard and gain a higher economic position, but in Japan that advantage has a smaller effect on you and your potential.
Yes? That's a good thing, that means the society is more mobile. A society where your parent's economic position grants a large advantage on you and your potential is inherently less mobile.
Less correlation between between your parent's wealth and your wealth is mobility, I think you're confused.
>As an example, your father could work hard and gain a higher economic position, but in Japan that advantage has a smaller effect on you and your potential.
Yes? That's a good thing, that means the society is more mobile. A society where your parent's economic position grants a large advantage on you and your potential is inherently less mobile.
> Less correlation between between your parent's wealth and your wealth is mobility
That's absolutely true, if we're talking about individual mobility, but I was commenting on the idea of intergenerational mobility as mentioned in the parent and also in other places in this thread.
If your parent's economic position is irrelevant to your own, then every generation effectively 'resets' and there is not intergenerational mobility, which I took to mean as the gradual economic mobility of a family over multiple generations.
> A society where your parent's economic position grants a large advantage on you and your potential is inherently less mobile
While there is very likely a correlation here, most economists agree that economics in society is not a zero-sum game and thus one person's advantage as a result of their parents won't necessitate another's disadvantage to an equal degree. It's not a direct correlation; and that's before we factor in the increased motivation to innovate for your children's futures that come with an economic inheritance system, so on and so forth.
That's absolutely true, if we're talking about individual mobility, but I was commenting on the idea of intergenerational mobility as mentioned in the parent and also in other places in this thread.
If your parent's economic position is irrelevant to your own, then every generation effectively 'resets' and there is not intergenerational mobility, which I took to mean as the gradual economic mobility of a family over multiple generations.
> A society where your parent's economic position grants a large advantage on you and your potential is inherently less mobile
While there is very likely a correlation here, most economists agree that economics in society is not a zero-sum game and thus one person's advantage as a result of their parents won't necessitate another's disadvantage to an equal degree. It's not a direct correlation; and that's before we factor in the increased motivation to innovate for your children's futures that come with an economic inheritance system, so on and so forth.
What does conformity have to do with meritocracy? They seem orthogonal.
Stability is a more appropriate term.
Japanese culture values stability very highly. People in this thread believe this kind of stability results in low economic mobility. In the US, people associate high economic mobility with meritocracy.
There's a couple leaps to be made in both associations, but I think that's what the gist is.
Japanese culture values stability very highly. People in this thread believe this kind of stability results in low economic mobility. In the US, people associate high economic mobility with meritocracy.
There's a couple leaps to be made in both associations, but I think that's what the gist is.
You have to conform to the "life plan" of your station, what your parents expect, what they raise you to, what your peers (from a similar background) are doing.
From the wiki: "prefer the continuation of a harmonious community over their personal interests". That's directly opposed to meritocracy.
From the wiki: "prefer the continuation of a harmonious community over their personal interests". That's directly opposed to meritocracy.
And how measure a societies level of either. Few would disagree that conformity was stronger in Japan than the US, but it’s got to be hard to measure.
Beware a pure meritocracy. In a meritocracy there will still be people at the bottom, and they will be told they deserve to be there.
The word "meritocracy" was not coined as a positive term. It was intended to describe a dystopia. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
Is Japan part of Western Society?
If you can describe a dividing line for Western society which puts Japan on the outside and all of the Pope, Barack Obama, all members of Congress, Hawaii, Ireland, and France on the inside, you’d get a really good East Asian Studies paper out of it. If your definition of Western society excludes any group in that second set, it is clearly a useless definition.
(Ask a simple question, get a simple answer: yes. One has to be mendacious about definitions to come to any other result.)
(Ask a simple question, get a simple answer: yes. One has to be mendacious about definitions to come to any other result.)
I would say yes, post WW2. It's a wealthy capitalistic representative democracy which seems to be what people say when they mean "the West", at least in terms of economics and meritocracy.
I'm inclined to say yes as well, but it really depends on what aspect of its society we're referring to.
No. For two reasons: first talking of the "West Society" as a single entity doesn’t make sense. There are multiples societies such as the Fench, the German, the US ones which have common traits but also some differences. You could however put them under the concept of Western civilization.
Secondly, Japan is very different from the West. Not so much about the institutions which were calqued on Europeans ones after the war, but because of how people think. Having living there speaking a bit of the language, it is a totally different world with different values and most people are just fine living in their country and nor caring about the West or any foreign countries.
Secondly, Japan is very different from the West. Not so much about the institutions which were calqued on Europeans ones after the war, but because of how people think. Having living there speaking a bit of the language, it is a totally different world with different values and most people are just fine living in their country and nor caring about the West or any foreign countries.
We do? Maybe here on HN but it’s pretty widely acknowledged in most places that it’s not.
This happened in Japan. You can't get much less "West"!
Career outcomes are strongly correlated with IQ in the US, suggesting a fairly robust meritocracy.
Japan is also not “The West” - if you’re being sarcastic, it was a bit under the radar.
Japan is also not “The West” - if you’re being sarcastic, it was a bit under the radar.
>Career outcomes are strongly correlated with IQ in the US
I'd actually love to see that study. But before you link it I'll dispute it anyways which is that this a problem with a third variable, wealth. Wealthy parents raise IQs by being more attentive, allowing children to attend better schools, etc.
>Japan is also not “The West” - if you’re being sarcastic, it was a bit under the radar.
Yes it is.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/08/why-are...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Heritabilit...
I'd actually love to see that study. But before you link it I'll dispute it anyways which is that this a problem with a third variable, wealth. Wealthy parents raise IQs by being more attentive, allowing children to attend better schools, etc.
>Japan is also not “The West” - if you’re being sarcastic, it was a bit under the radar.
Yes it is.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/08/why-are...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Heritabilit...
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/27/against-individual-iq-w...
https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf
Assuming I understand your motivation for posting the IQ heritability article - yes, higher IQ parents will have higher IQ children, leading to compounding effects. This could (at most) lead to widening of IQ distributions where intelligence-based selection effects are amplified. However, since meritocratic positions sample from a fraction of the population, not an IQ or “merit points” range, this shouldn’t really have any strong anti-meritocratic effect.
> Yes it is.
Well I’m glad you settled that.
https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf
Assuming I understand your motivation for posting the IQ heritability article - yes, higher IQ parents will have higher IQ children, leading to compounding effects. This could (at most) lead to widening of IQ distributions where intelligence-based selection effects are amplified. However, since meritocratic positions sample from a fraction of the population, not an IQ or “merit points” range, this shouldn’t really have any strong anti-meritocratic effect.
> Yes it is.
Well I’m glad you settled that.
IQ also correlates with education. What else correlates with education?
Tell that to any chemist laid off by Pfizer & their ilk.
Lets be real, western society is not perfect nor meritocratic. Its why we say networking and connections are still important for your career. Many kids just go to the same companies their parents go to (if their parents are high-up VPs) and receive great internships or positions.
You're not going to expect a Rockefeller to die from poverty right?
You're not going to expect a Rockefeller to die from poverty right?
[deleted]
Let’s be real, the western world is the most meritocratic. I don’t know anyone working at their parents company and I’ve met easily >200 people with about a quarter of them in high positions VP+ and all of them with great high paying careers.
Most meritocratic doesn't mean its very meritocratic, its really been 50-70 years since females got the vote, if we were so meritocratic maybe females would be getting equal pay by now. Just because you're a goose among chicken doesn't mean you're perfect.
And for those complaining that its not real that women are being paid less in similar positions and its situational, if there wasn't data then nobody would be complaining. Things only start because theres a reason or agenda for starting.
And for those complaining that its not real that women are being paid less in similar positions and its situational, if there wasn't data then nobody would be complaining. Things only start because theres a reason or agenda for starting.
Women are getting equal pay when normalized to experience. I think it's within 2-5%. Or do you expect equal pay for same amount of time worked?
Heres my sources: https://nwlc.org/resources/faq-about-the-wage-gap/
Meritocracy would mean disregarding skin colour, background and gender in my book. I would like your sources and stats
Meritocracy would mean disregarding skin colour, background and gender in my book. I would like your sources and stats
Your analysis and link proves my point. When accounting for job title there is virtually no pay gap. You cannot compare just the salaries when many women choose to stay home and enter the workforce years later. That makes no sense.
This is a prolonged internet argument, which is really just wasted time, I need your figures, using my data is just lazy without pinpointing where the "accounting for job title there is virtually no pay gap" comes from.
Lets use Wall Street Journal data then, they're a reputable source no? This one examines using specific job titles:
http://graphics.wsj.com/gender-pay-gap/
And give me actual links and sources or else your argument is invalid without evidence, if you don't have any data or evidence backing me up, I can move on and ignore you as a troll without data.
Lets use Wall Street Journal data then, they're a reputable source no? This one examines using specific job titles:
http://graphics.wsj.com/gender-pay-gap/
And give me actual links and sources or else your argument is invalid without evidence, if you don't have any data or evidence backing me up, I can move on and ignore you as a troll without data.
what is the percentage of high net-worth individuals who earned their wealth vs. inherited it?
[deleted]
Not an actual prince but merely from a rich (birth) family.
Amazing. This is an interesting read.
He shouldn't have settled for $317,000.
On what grounds could he get more from the hospital? IANAL and am not familiar with Japanese statutes, but the law almost certainly doesn't guarantee any entitlement to wealth from being born into a wealthy family. He probably has a very good chance of making a claim on the family's estate though.
> On what grounds could he get more
I’d say he could get more if the other half of the switch paid back the amount he presumably benefitted by. Should the two values equal out though?
I’d say he could get more if the other half of the switch paid back the amount he presumably benefitted by. Should the two values equal out though?
Should have gone with annual payout from re profits. Not sure if possible, but probably circumventable (through trusts etc)
The one case I could legitimately see being made for harm to the child caused by being switched at birth is if there is some sort of genetic disease that they could have had diagnosed or treated sooner if they knew their birth parents. Not going to a fancy private school isn't harm though, it's just lack of privilege.