America's Unlevel Field- NY Times

[Mr. Magoo]

I'm doing an honors thesis in egalitarian political philosophy, so this piece caught my eye. If anyone insults the author instead of the argument, show yourself the door  .

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/opinion/krugman-americas-unlevel-field.html?_r=1&ref=global-home



Last month President Obama gave a speech invoking the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt on behalf of progressive ideals — and Republicans were not happy. Mitt Romney, in particular, insisted that where Roosevelt believed that “government should level the playing field to create equal opportunities,” Mr. Obama believes that “government should create equal outcomes,” that we should have a society where “everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort and willingness to take risk.”

As many people were quick to point out, this portrait of the president as radical redistributionist was pure fiction. What hasn’t been as widely noted, however, is that Mr. Romney’s picture of himself as a believer in a level playing field is just as fictional. Where is the evidence that he or his party cares at all about equality of opportunity?

Let’s talk for a minute about the actual state of the playing field.

Americans are much more likely than citizens of other nations to believe that they live in a meritocracy. But this self-image is a fantasy: as a report in The Times last week pointed out, America actually stands out as the advanced country in which it matters most who your parents were, the country in which those born on one of society’s lower rungs have the least chance of climbing to the top or even to the middle.

And if you ask why America is more class-bound in practice than the rest of the Western world, a large part of the reason is that our government falls down on the job of creating equal opportunity.

The failure starts early: in America, the holes in the social safety net mean that both low-income mothers and their children are all too likely to suffer from poor nutrition and receive inadequate health care. It continues once children reach school age, where they encounter a system in which the affluent send their kids to good, well-financed public schools or, if they choose, to private schools, while less-advantaged children get a far worse education.

Once they reach college age, those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are far less likely to go to college — and vastly less likely to go to a top-tier school — than those luckier in their parentage. At the most selective, “Tier 1” schools, 74 percent of the entering class comes from the quarter of households that have the highest “socioeconomic status”; only 3 percent comes from the bottom quarter.

And if children from our society’s lower rungs do manage to make it into a good college, the lack of financial support makes them far more likely to drop out than the children of the affluent, even if they have as much or more native ability. One long-term study by the Department of Education found that students with high test scores but low-income parents were less likely to complete college than students with low scores but affluent parents — loosely speaking, that smart poor kids are less likely than dumb rich kids to get a degree.

It’s no wonder, then, that Horatio Alger stories, tales of poor kids who make good, are much less common in reality than they are in legend — and much less common in America than they are in Canada or Europe. Which brings me back to those, like Mr. Romney, who claim to believe in equality of opportunity. Where is the evidence for that claim?

Think about it: someone who really wanted equal opportunity would be very concerned about the inequality of our current system. He would support more nutritional aid for low-income mothers-to-be and young children. He would try to improve the quality of public schools. He would support aid to low-income college students. And he would support what every other advanced country has, a universal health care system, so that nobody need worry about untreated illness or crushing medical bills.

If Mr. Romney has come out for any of these things, I’ve missed it. And the Congressional wing of his party seems determined to make upward mobility even harder. For example, Republicans have tried to slash funds for the Women, Infants and Children program, which helps provide adequate nutrition to low-income mothers and their children; they have demanded cuts in Pell grants, which are designed to help lower-income students afford college.

And they have, of course, pledged to repeal a health reform that, for all its imperfections, would finally give Americans the guaranteed care that everyone else in the advanced world takes for granted.

So where is the evidence that Mr. Romney or his party actually believes in equal opportunity? Judging by their actions, they seem to prefer a society in which your station in life is largely determined by that of your parents — and in which the children of the very rich get to inherit their estates tax-free. Teddy Roosevelt would not have approved.

[Soul Crusher]

Utterly absurd article.   We spend far more on education per capita than most others, same with health care, etc.     

The problem in our society is the cost of living, inflation, regulation, taxation, and too many laws.   


Why is equalty of outcomes even a desired outcome?  We can all be equally broke and slaves right?   

[Mr. Magoo]

Utterly absurd article.   We spend far more on education per capita than most others, same with health care, etc.     

The problem in our society is the cost of living, inflation, regulation, taxation, and too many laws.   


Why is equalty of outcomes even a desired outcome?  We can all be equally broke and slaves right?   

U.S. spending more than others doesn't mean we need to reduce amount spent. It could mean we need to spend on different areas, restructure what we do spend it on, or even that other countries don't spend enough, etc. And nobody argues that equality of outcomes is a desired outcome. That reduces personal responsibility, and the principle that governments should treat their citizens with equal respect (point is from Ronald Dworkin). Imagine two people who got equal income. One has simple tastes and the other is handicapped and needs to pay someone to watch after him, etc. It seems unfair to give them both equal income when the 2nd has much more expenses, and might lead a much worse life if given an equal pay.

[Roger Bacon]

our government falls down on the job of creating equal opportunity.

Maybe our government should get out of the business of creating equal opportunities all together?

[Mr. Magoo]

Maybe our government should get out of the business of creating equal opportunities all together?

Do you think a government should preserve and promote what is "just" and "fair"? If not, then do you believe an aristocracy or a feudal system is an acceptable form of government? If the answer to the first is no, but the answer to the second is also no, then why?

If yes to the first question, do you think it's "fair" or "just" that some people lack equal opportunity due to no choice of their own?

[Dos Equis]

U.S. spending more than others doesn't mean we need to reduce amount spent. It could mean we need to spend on different areas, restructure what we do spend it on, or even that other countries don't spend enough, etc. And nobody argues that equality of outcomes is a desired outcome. That reduces personal responsibility, and the principle that governments should treat their citizens with equal respect (point is from Ronald Dworkin). Imagine two people who got equal income. One has simple tastes and the other is handicapped and needs to pay someone to watch after him, etc. It seems unfair to give them both equal income when the 2nd has much more expenses, and might lead a much worse life if given an equal pay.

Businesses don't give people income.  Employees earn it.  That's the way it ought to be. 

[Mr. Magoo]

Businesses don't give people income.  Employees earn it.  That's the way it ought to be. 

Irrelevant to my thought experiment. I was only showing how equal outcomes can be argued to be unacceptable and unfair. The example was two people receiving an equal income. Notice the word "imagine" in that paragraph. If you really care so much about the example being realistic, then imagine the income was in the form of an inheritance to two children, one who is handicapped and need more funds (pay somebody to watch after them, etc) to lead an equal successful life as their non-handicapped sibling.

[howardroark]

Do you think a government should preserve and promote what is "just" and "fair"? If not, then do you believe an aristocracy or a feudal system is an acceptable form of government? If the answer to the first is no, but the answer to the second is also no, then why?

If yes to the first question, do you think it's "fair" or "just" that some people lack equal opportunity due to no choice of their own?

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Not sure what you mean by this. But the basic rule of justice, fairness, equality, etc. is that you don't treat different people differently. That doesn't just apply to race or sex, but also income: those of higher income levels should face the same rules (and taxes) as the rest of the population.

[howardroark]

LOL at this article... income mobility was the greatest in the United States till this country was overrun with taxes, regulations, and "welfare" which restricted the ability of the poor to rise to the top.

[Soul Crusher]

LOL at this article... income mobility was the greatest in the United States till this country was overrun with taxes, regulations, and "welfare" which restricted the ability of the poor to rise to the top.

These leftists are a real hoot.   They dont understand basic concepts or reality to any degree whatsoever.   

[Dos Equis]

Irrelevant to my thought experiment. I was only showing how equal outcomes can be argued to be unacceptable and unfair. The example was two people receiving an equal income. Notice the word "imagine" in that paragraph. If you really care so much about the example being realistic, then imagine the income was in the form of an inheritance to two children, one who is handicapped and need more funds (pay somebody to watch after them, etc) to lead an equal successful life as their non-handicapped sibling.

Wasn't really commenting on your thought experiment.  Just this:

It seems unfair to give them both equal income when the 2nd has much more expenses, and might lead a much worse life if given an equal pay.

Regarding the inheritance, not sure what point you're trying to make?  Government should have nothing to do with how people decide to give their money/property/assets away. 

[headhuntersix]

What part of thats not what this country is, don't you get. There is no free lunch. Both sides of my family are immigrants. One off the boat from Ireland and one second generation Italian for Sicily. They both did well. My grand parents and their famlies all did well eventually. Why have the children of Asians done well....why is only one group done poorly...that one group has been here the longest. Why is it that latin Americans are slowly moving up the ladder. People need to work hard...no hand outs..no unlevel advantage. You have idiots in US Berkley whining about the fact that there are more Asians and whites in the engineering department then minorities...what? So the answer is lowering standards? You libs and your bizarre thought process.

[howardroark]

I'll reiterate since the OP has not replied... The only fair or egalitarian society is one where everyone is treated equally, in other words, one negative rights are observed and no positive obligations are made by government... the article in the OP goes directly against that. The article presumes to take from some and give to others. That is not fair and it most certainly is not equal treatment.

[Roger Bacon]

Do you think a government should preserve and promote what is "just" and "fair"? If not, then do you believe an aristocracy or a feudal system is an acceptable form of government? If the answer to the first is no, but the answer to the second is also no, then why?

If yes to the first question, do you think it's "fair" or "just" that some people lack equal opportunity due to no choice of their own?

In reply to your first question, of course. 

We've gone way overboard in "leveling the playing field" today.  We should continue to level the playing field through our schools, public libraries, churches, etc...  Our government can't continue to attempt to raise people though, and we all need to realize a certain percentage of people are just doomed to fail. 

[rachaelsnav]

When is the playing field considered level?  We have had Black SECDEF and State, Black Oscar winner, Black Supreme Court Justices, Black President, Black CEOs.  What is the criteria for saying the playing field is level lets move on?

[George Whorewell]

It would only be fair if Mr Magoo was stoned to death. Perhaps an equal number of similarly sized black, white and brown rocks can be hurled at his empty head with precisely equal force so that he may accurately absorb the true essence of fairness.

 While other rocks of dissimilar size and color would experience discrimination, the issue of rock fairness can be adequately addressed through numerous legislative avenues. Fortunately, all of these avenues begin and end with US government subsidies and affirmative action quotas. The rock lobby is quite powerful in certain DC circles.


Just saying...

[tonymctones]

U.S. spending more than others doesn't mean we need to reduce amount spent. It could mean we need to spend on different areas, restructure what we do spend it on, or even that other countries don't spend enough, etc. And nobody argues that equality of outcomes is a desired outcome. That reduces personal responsibility, and the principle that governments should treat their citizens with equal respect (point is from Ronald Dworkin). Imagine two people who got equal income. One has simple tastes and the other is handicapped and needs to pay someone to watch after him, etc. It seems unfair to give them both equal income when the 2nd has much more expenses, and might lead a much worse life if given an equal pay.

doesnt seem unfair to me at all, you get out what you put in...

who gets to determine what their needs are?

by your logic a wellfare queen with 5 kids should be pulling down six figures for sitting on her ass...

what you fail to see is that paying them in accordance to their input is egalitarian as a matter of fact its the most objective way to be fair about it...

[tonymctones]

Magoo,

what makes you think its fair for one person to put in the same or more effort and get less?

how is that fair at all?

[George Whorewell]

Fairness is Helen Keller being allowed to become a Navy Seal. Actually no wait--- Fairness is Congress forcing the military to make Helen Keller a Navy Seal. Her squad members will have to "get with the program" and realize that gender distinctions, handicap-able attributes and unnecessarily wasting money/ putting lives in danger are fair necessities of a civilized society.



How's fairness done for the black community? 30 years of "fairness" has done wonders!

How about "economic" fairness? I can't think of a more resounding success. 1 trillion dollars wasted on the "war against poverty" and making home ownership more "fair" via Fannie and Freddie and look at how wonderful everything has become!

Fairness is blaming someone else for what YOU don't have because your too stupid or too lazy or too inept or too much of a coward to be what you want to be.

Those who deserve help and need help NEVER bitch about "fairness". Only the rats who suck the blood out of society and their political party ( the left) whine about things being unfair.

[Bindare_Dundat]

How's fairness done for the black community? 30 years of "fairness" has done wonders!

How about "economic" fairness? I can't think of a more resounding success. 1 trillion dollars wasted on the "war against poverty" and making home ownership more "fair" via Fannie and Freddie and look at how wonderful everything has become!

Fairness is blaming someone else for what YOU don't have because your too stupid or too lazy or too inept or too much of a coward to be what you want to be.

Booom.

[Shockwave]

Booom.

Double boom.

[Mr. Magoo]

I'll respond to some of these tomorrow or sometime, I've been busy lately

[tonymctones]

I look forward to your justification of the ppl who exert more effort/produce more getting less as equal treatment...

[kcballer]

Maybe our government should get out of the business of creating equal opportunities all together?

Haha come on.  Capitalism is based on equality of opportunity for all.  In order to have a true capitalist system there must be equal opportunity for anyone to enter the market and compete.  Clearly that is not the case when education and resources are not available to all in the same way. 

[howardroark]

Haha come on.  Capitalism is based on equality of opportunity for all.  In order to have a true capitalist system there must be equal opportunity for anyone to enter the market and compete.  Clearly that is not the case when education and resources are not available to all in the same way. 

Capitalism isn't based on equality of opportunity, but on the private ownership of the means of production... And in a true capitalist system, everyone must be treated equally and fairly - meaning everyone must be treated by the same rules. That means not taking money from some in order to give it to someone else to buy a certain product.