Equal Opportunity?

[james12]

There have been a number of threads now about the Occupy Wall Street movement. In general I find the protests lacking in direction and providing little to no solutions. However, there is a very valid and interesting topic which in some ways is at the heart of the protests and I would love to hear thoughts.

Let me first give a little context since I am afraid the term equality of opportunity (or equal opportunity) has been twisted and dragged through the mud over the years till it is hard to know what is understood by the phrase. By equality of opportunity I mean the chance for every person at birth to have the same opportunities and not be limited by their parent's economic standing. I do not mean equal chance of participation throughout life (such as Equal Opportunity Employment etc.) Stated another way, by equal opportunity I mean the chance for everyone to start the race in the same position but not for all to finish the race at the same time.

I believe few would say, based on the above statement, that we have equality of opportunity in the US. So now...

Question 1: Should all people have equality of opportunity? Why or why not?

Question 2: If yes, can it be achieved without destroying initiative? How?

Any thoughts are welcome.

[LeKook]

I believe few would say, based on the above statement, that we have equality of opportunity in the US. So now...

Question 1: Should all people have equality of opportunity? Why or why not?

I think the answer to your question is yes, but my question is, opportunity to do what, exactly? :) After being given the same opportunity as everyone else, the results should be up to the person taking the opportunity. Why? Because it's an attempt at fairness, although there's never a guarantee that life will be fair for everyone across the board. But there's no harm in trying, right?

Question 2: If yes, can it be achieved without destroying initiative? How?

Not quite clear on the gist of this question...

[LittleWyvern]

Question 1: Should all people have equality of opportunity? Why or why not?

Of course. When the Declaration of Independence said that "all men are created equal," it could not mean that all men are equal at birth. My interpretation is that all men are created with equal opportunities to learn and grow. This "self evident" truth is something that we should take care not to extinguish.

Question 2: If yes, can it be achieved without destroying initiative? How?

Certainly. All men have equal opportunity, but not everyone takes advantage of these opportunities. Initiative is the process by which we take advantage of our equal opportunity.

I think you may be confusing "equal opportunity" with "equal results," the latter being the process which destroys initiative.

[skippy740]

If you think opportunity is limited... then I have to ask if you have a library card and checked out the learning opportunities of the books available there?

Can't read? They'll help you learn at the library.

[skippy740]

I just picked up a book at the library. It's called "Dig your well before you're thirsty" by Harvey MacKay. It's a book about how to build and develop a personal network. With a good network, you'll never be out of a job or looking for work because you have a sizeable network who also have their own networks.

Now, we don't learn about this in school... I don't care if you go to school in the ghetto or in Beverly Hills. You might and should learn it in business school... but there's no guarantee of that, nor can everyone afford to go to a business school.

Never let school get in the way of a good education. You just gotta know how to ask the right questions and start looking for the answers.

No one will ask the questions FOR you.

[james12]

Question 2: If yes, can we achieve it without destroying initative? How?

Not quite clear on the gist of this question...

LeKook,

If we add an additional heavy tax to the richest 1% (or 5% or whatever) of the population the very taxation helps destroy the willingness for people to reach this level of income, thus destroying initiative. Won't many people work to be just under the level of the higher taxation and no more? On the other end of the spectrum, if we allow the poorest 10% (or 20% or 50%) to have a certain level of income regardless of how much they work doesn't this destroy initiative? Aren’t there a certain number of individuals who will refuse to work in order to receive the hand out?

[skippy740]

[james12]

Certainly. All men have equal opportunity, but not everyone takes advantage of these opportunities. Initiative is the process by which we take advantage of our equal opportunity.

I think you may be confusing "equal opportunity" with "equal results," the latter being the process which destroys initiative.

I disagree that all men have an equal opportunity at birth. Take Sorry Sally and Happy Harry (pulled those out of my head:)) Just as an example, if Happy Harry is born to an extremely rich family he will have a relatively easy time getting into Harvard. If Sorry Sally is born to a poor family there is little chance that she will go to Harvard. (Some may argue that she could work very hard and get a scholarship but the point still remains, she has to work harder for it than Harry.)

[annewandering]

Question 2: If yes, can we achieve it without destroying initative? How?

On the other end of the spectrum, if we allow the poorest 10% (or 20% or 50%) to have a certain level of income regardless of how much they work doesn't this destroy initiative? Aren’t there a certain number of individuals who will refuse to work in order to receive the hand out?

Sure there will be. Do you know how to weed them out of the ones who would work if they could? I don't know how. If we could then those lazy people can be given an incentive very easily by making them work or else. (in my opinion that group will probably chose to find another scam but I guess that is an opportunity in a weird way)

What I wish is the percent who would work if they could be given a chance to work at what they are capable of. Sadly this doesn't happen or they do work but for so low of wages they don't know how to get out of it.

[LittleWyvern]

I disagree that all men have an equal opportunity at birth. Take Sorry Sally and Happy Harry (pulled those out of my head:)) Just as an example, if Happy Harry is born to an extremely rich family he will have a relatively easy time getting into Harvard. If Sorry Sally is born to a poor family there is little chance that she will go to Harvard. (Some may argue that she could work very hard and get a scholarship but the point still remains, she has to work harder for it than Harry.)

Note that I said at birth. When we grow up we get introduced to all sorts of social constructs and classes that kinda muck up the situation a little bit.

Besides, you could also argue that just because somebody is rich doesn't mean that they'll be smart. I'm talking about a deeper human improvement (human nature, if you will), not a social construct.

[james12]

If you think opportunity is limited... then I have to ask if you have a library card and checked out the learning opportunities of the books available there?

Can't read? They'll help you learn at the library.

Skippy, You are right to a large extent, and certainly this is how I must look at the situation individually. I should not use perceived inequality to limit my potential. However, I cannot ignore the fact that some children do not have the same opportunity as others. Can you agree that to some extent economic circumstances limit an individual? I'm not saying they cannot achieve great things but they are at a disadvantage. If this is so, than I ask is this fair? Can nothing be done?

[Backroads]

Question 1: Should all people have equality of opportunity? Why or why not?

According to your definition being "equal opportunity without to parent's economic standing", it does suggest that all babies at birth should have the exact same economic opportunities. I don't know if that's what you mean or not, but even if you were to give every baby X amount of dollars, it's up to the parents' to spend that money, not baby.

I have no idea how to start everyone out equally in such a way. Some babies are born into rich families, some babies are born into poor families. Economic status does have an impact. I see no problem with Rich Baby going to fancy expensive private school and Poor Baby going into public school. I think both babies should have an opportunity for education, but I don't think Poor Baby is automatically entitled to Rich Fancy Expensive School.

But yes, I fully believe in equality of opportunity. I see it more as prevention, though. There would be no laws obstructing Baby from trying to do whatever he wants. Baby should have opportunities to schools. Nothing should stop Baby from choosing to get a job.

Question 2: If yes, can it be achieved without destroying initiative? How?

I guess my above answers slipped into this. Yes, it can be done without destroying iniative. No laws or anything should prevent Poor Baby (or Rich Baby, for that matter) from going for an education if he chooses, a job if he chooses.

Now, I can't guarantee either Baby will get the jobs they want, the school they want, etc. But I think if laws keep everything open, that will suffice.

[Backroads]

Note that I said at birth. When we grow up we get introduced to all sorts of social constructs and classes that kinda muck up the situation a little bit.

Besides, you could also argue that just because somebody is rich doesn't mean that they'll be smart. I'm talking about a deeper human improvement (human nature, if you will), not a social construct.

I agree. Just because Happy Harry is rich doesn't mean he's smart enough for Harvard.

[Backroads]

Skippy, You are right to a large extent, and certainly this is how I must look at the situation individually. I should not use perceived inequality to limit my potential. However, I cannot ignore the fact that some children do not have the same opportunity as others. Can you agree that to some extent economic circumstances limit an individual? I'm not saying they cannot achieve great things but they are at a disadvantage. If this is so, than I ask is this fair? Can nothing be done?

No, I'm not Skippy, but I'll respond.

As long as nothing illegal/unethical/etc happened to create those economic circumstances, whether they be good or bad, yes, it's fair that certain economic circumstances limit an individual. Is it nice? Is it ideal? That is up for arguing. But yes, it's quite fair that there are economic differences.

As for limiting an individual... lots of things limit an individual. It's part of life. If we were all economically equal, we'd still have looks, clout, intelligence, interests, abilities, etc, to limit us.

You seem to be suggesting that we pull babies from their homes immediately after birth, stick them in some lab with such-n-such money, and wait for them to go to school.

[james12]

No, I'm not Skippy, but I'll respond.

As long as nothing illegal/unethical/etc happened to create those economic circumstances, whether they be good or bad, yes, it's fair that certain economic circumstances limit an individual. Is it nice? Is it ideal? That is up for arguing. But yes, it's quite fair that there are economic differences.

As for limiting an individual... lots of things limit an individual. It's part of life. If we were all economically equal, we'd still have looks, clout, intelligence, interests, abilities, etc, to limit us.

You seem to be suggesting that we pull babies from their homes immediately after birth, stick them in some lab with such-n-such money, and wait for them to go to school.

Backroads, We can assume in many cases that nothing illegal or unethical happened to make one family richer than another. However, I must disagree that it is fair that the child be born in a family with economic limitations. You may be correct that there are other limitations that are unequal such as looks, intelligence, etc. However, the question of economic inequlity is specifically posed by the savior in D&C 38:26-27, "For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just? Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am." The parable seems to indicate that it is not just. But how do we solve the problem without running into the freedom and initiative issue?

I obviously do not think we should pull babies from their homes but I am suggesting that as wonderful as our current economy is it does not adequately address this issue.

[skippy740]

I think it's all a matter of perspective. Most 1st generation millionaires are (legal) immigrants. They brought the drive and determination to become wealthy. They saved a lot before the "big money" started rolling in.

Perhaps a lot of children from 'middle-income households' should be given to new legal immigrants? (I'm joking of course.) We take so much for granted in America. (And yes, the American Government seems to take us for granted too.)

The basics that children need: food, shelter, clothing and love.

The basics of education: reading, writing, arithmetric (and maybe spelling).

The biggest problems that I see is that we don't teach kids HOW to think. We 'test' them on facts, but not necessarily on how to solve problems.

Even Thomas S. Monson said: "What gets measured, gets done. Where performance is measured, performance improves."

However, based on the schooling of our kids, I'd be inclined to quote Stephen R. Covey when he said "Wrong Jungle!" And the guy says "Shut up! We're making progress!"

Teach kids HOW to think... and we'll change society.

[skippy740]

Ask Les Brown if he was at a disadvantage growing up.

Ask Jim Rohn if he felt he was disadvantaged growing up.

Statistics are only relevant to the masses. Statistics may be "against us"... but it's up to each of us to determine our futures.

I am NOT a statistic! :)

[Backroads]

Backroads, We can assume in many cases that nothing illegal or unethical happened to make one family richer than another. However, I must disagree that it is fair that the child be born in a family with economic limitations. You may be correct that there are other limitations that are unequal such as looks, intelligence, etc. However, the question of economic inequlity is specifically posed by the savior in D&C 38:26-27, "For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just? Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am." The parable seems to indicate that it is not just. But how do we solve the problem without running into the freedom and initiative issue?

I obviously do not think we should pull babies from their homes but I am suggesting that as wonderful as our current economy is it does not adequately address this issue.

So how do you stop a family with certain economic limitations from having children, if it's not fair? How is it fair for a couple to save up for years so their son could have a good education only to have that money ripped away by the government for a family that never bothered? How is it fair to suggest that rich kids are happier than not-so-rich kids? How is fair to suggest that poor people should not have kids because those kids would not have the same fancy clothes and stuff richer kids have I personally think it would be unfair to stop a family.

I'm confused on your definition of fair here. You want all kids to have equal opportunities, but you still want to people to have inniative. Is that not your question? Yet you seem to be pushing the "fairness" over the inniative angle.

I guess I'm not willing to look for a solution to economic equality for children because I don't think it's as necessary as you think it is. But let me ask you some questions and we can see where it all comes out and maybe get a better discussion:

What exactly is needed to ensure that all children have equal opportunities? Don't worry right now if it stops personal inniative or not, just tell me what will guarantee equal beginning opportunities for everyone.

Do they need a certain amount of money? Do they need such-n-such educational standards? Does economic status necessarily guarantee desired educational standards?

As for the parable, I disagree that applies soley to the government. Lots of people give to charity. Lots of people prefer charitable donations over expecting the government to fix poverty.

[Vort]

I am NOT a statistic! :)

About 93% of people believe this.

[skippy740]

Well, 86.7% of all statistics are made up.

[Backroads]

Well, 86.7% of all statistics are made up.

I demand a source for that.

[skippy740]

US Department of... of... Congress!!! Yeah, that's it!

[james12]

Backroads, Let me just say I don't have all the answers that is why I posted this thread. However, let me give you my thoughts in regards to your questions.

So how do you stop a family with certain economic limitations from having children, if it's not fair? How is it fair for a couple to save up for years so their son could have a good education only to have that money ripped away by the government for a family that never bothered? How is it fair to suggest that rich kids are happier than not-so-rich kids? How is fair to suggest that poor people should not have kids because those kids would not have the same fancy clothes and stuff richer kids have I personally think it would be unfair to stop a family.

I agree with you here. It is not right to stop a family from having a child. It is not fair for the government to take money from those who have earned it.

I'm confused on your definition of fair here. You want all kids to have equal opportunities, but you still want to people to have inniative. Is that not your question? Yet you seem to be pushing the "fairness" over the inniative angle.

No, both equal opportunity and the initiative to work are important. I think I have been dwelling on the former more due to the direction of the discussion.

I guess I'm not willing to look for a solution to economic equality for children because I don't think it's as necessary as you think it is. But let me ask you some questions and we can see where it all comes out and maybe get a better discussion:

What exactly is needed to ensure that all children have equal opportunities? Don't worry right now if it stops personal inniative or not, just tell me what will guarantee equal beginning opportunities for everyone.

Do they need a certain amount of money? Do they need such-n-such educational standards? Does economic status necessarily guarantee desired educational standards?

Again, in this context I am only discussing equal opportunity in monetary issues. So for a child to start out having at least close to the same opportunities as another each child's standard of living must be about equal. Of course, as any child grows, they make choices and one child may excel above another. This is as it should be. Equal outcomes are inherently unfair. I am here concerned with the starting point (or close to it).

[estradling75]

Again, in this context I am only discussing equal opportunity in monetary issues. So for a child to start out having at least close to the same opportunities as another each child's standard of living must be about equal. Of course, as any child grows, they make choices and one child may excel above another. This is as it should be. Equal outcomes are inherently unfair. I am here concerned with the starting point (or close to it).

And when this successful child grows up and decides to give their children additional help. By means of the money/connections they earned... then what?

[Backroads]

US Department of... of... Congress!!! Yeah, that's it!

Oh, really? Do you have any idea the poor statistics on the accuracy of their statistics?