Being from a healthy family helps considerably in getting a higher education, which leads to more opportunties.
Further confirms that wealth inequality leads to poor social mobility (wealth return is found to be a significant contributing factor, you need wealth to acquire wealth).
Finding an example or two of a janitor simply does not speak to the system as a whole. If you’re born poor, then you’re likely to remain poor. If you’re born wealthy, then you’re like to see your wealth grow.
I have no problem in principle with a universal basic income, but I’d want to see the evidence that it’s the most effective means of mitigating poverty, which I’m not completely convinced it is. To play devil’s advocate for a moment, consider that those of the very wealthy who became that way as a result of businesses they started are typically highly motivated workaholics (Elon Musk is a workaholic to the point of psychopathic dysfunction). Would we see the same profile among those eligible to receive a UBI?
I’ll try again with my marathon analogy. A small percentage of ordinary people that could run marathons actually do run them (0.2%). A small percentage of ordinary people that could invest their way to modest wealth actually do it. My belief is that both are equally possible for most people with jobs - running marathons and getting rich. Most people don’t do either, but reasonable people are willing to acknowledge that most anyone in average health could run a marathon.
Yet when you say the same thing about ordinary low income people being able to achieve wealth, out come the studies and demographic breakdowns on education levels, income levels, and economic backgrounds. All that the data really says is “these people are the type that currently get rich.” What it doesn’t say is that getting rich is limited to these groups. There’s nothing about Read, Holt, or Steve Hartman (the Indiana man profiled on CBS Morning today who left $13 million to charity after years working at the VA) that says anyone in similar, fairly common, circumstances couldn’t do the same. They had a steady income, lived below it, and invested. Wouldn’t that work for anyone? In my experience, yes.
People get offended by that idea. Unlike the probably just-as-rare behavior of few ordinary people running 26.2 miles, everyone seems to take the behavior of few ordinary people investing their way to millions as proof it can’t be done. Instead it seems they are rare for the same reason: both are something most people can’t be bothered to do. The difference in attitude seems to be that not getting rich has a whiff of personal accountability to it.
And to them I say good for them. They earned their wealth. But people like them are still a drop in the bucket. Among the truly wealthy, the billionaires and the like, you’ll find hardly any who were ever as low as middle class (J. K. Rowling might be the one exception). We’re not talking about running a marathon; we’re talking about running to geosynchronous orbit.
You know what they say “Facts don’t care about your feelings”.
I take it you didn’t actually read my cites?
Your experience is strictly anecdotal at best. Now if you have some actual real cites by experts that have studied it that would be something. Or is this a case of “I’m rejecting the expert’s reality, and substituting my own”?
This illustrates the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Macroeconomics is not just microeconomics x 1,000,000.
Sticking with your analogy, yes, an overwhelming majority of ordinary people could run a marathon, if they have the dedication to do so. What would the NYC marathon look like if 6,000,000 arrived on race day? What would NYC look like day after day if 6 million residents committed to training for the marathon?
We don’t have a system setup to handle 60% of the population attempting to run a marathon. Yes “anyone” can run a marathon, as long as only 0.2% of the population will actually do it.
We can support a larger number of runners only if we invest in our marathoning infrastructure. Until then, individuals can still strive for running one, but it’s unrealistic to think that everyone can collectively achieve it.
Someone training for a marathon is training in actual fitness, not just to beat an arbitrary number on a timekeeper’s stopwatch. They’re creating the physical fitness version of wealth, not money. Someone who got rich investing in the stock market didn’t create wealth, they just made money. That’s the difference.
Personally, I would make no ceiling, just a floor.
You can earn or hoard as much as you want, so long as nobody in your society (defined how you want, but I lean towards nation-state) involuntarily goes without basic human necessities, like food, utilities, shelter, clothing, healthcare, education or transportation. This isn’t your personal responsibility, but society’s in general. Nevertheless, society will need some of your money to accomplish the job, and that’s going to cut into your bottom line.
A minimal but sufficient quality of life for all members of society should be guaranteed. That alone will lower income inequality considerably, if only by massively increasing the bargaining power of every laborer and worker. But if you can still amass billions despite that, more power to you. You have my blessing.
It’s not wasted if it was given to him voluntarily in return for something of value. Nor is it hoarded if it is then invested in something of value.
The problem with the status quo is that the threat of economic catastrophe (homelessness, say, or starvation, preventable or untreated health problems, etc.) is behind every decision we make.
Take that threat away and the fiction that our economic decisions are voluntary suddenly becomes reality.