A global study led by a researcher at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and published in the journal Scientific Reports finds that economic inequality on a social level cannot be explained by bad choices among the poor nor by good decisions among the rich. Poor decisions were the same across all income groups, including for people who have overcome poverty.
But if at birth Tina has a trust fund of say $900,000 that is invested in index funds and blue chip stock, Jerome is likely to have significantly less money than Tina at retirement even though he worked hard and she just partied.
Capital outpaces labour, mathematically speaking.
Where did that come from? This discussion is about decisions. And statistically, how many people inherit huge trust funds vs people simply having the opportunity to make good decisions? It’s miniscule.
I think this discussion is about the contributing factors in economic equality. “Decisions” is just one of the possible contributing factors.
I was trying to use an obvious (no maths needed) example to make the point that access to capital is another, more powerful contributing factor.
The trust fund was a much easier way to make the point than if I give you a spreadsheet about people whose parents pay for their college versus those with student loans, or people whose parents own homes they can live in versus those who don’t, people with access to college and people without etc etc etc.
There’s not all that much churn between those with access to capital and those without.
I think your point has some merit, but this thread is absolutely about choices (check the title). Feel free to start a new thread and posit your thoughts there.
The thread title is ‘Economic inequality cannot be explained by bad choices, study finds.’
I was talking about economic inequality as per the thread title. If you don’t want to talk about it that’s fine, don’t - but there’s no need to tell me not to talk in here. We’re all friends.
You were not talking about economic inequality and choices (per the actual thread title), you introduced a random inheritance and chased a tangent as if they are the same thing. I didn’t tell you not to talk in here, but the purpose of a discussion is to discuss the actual topic, not hijack it with unrelated information.
I’m having a lot of difficulty understanding your perspective, so I’m just going to leave you alone. Have a nice day.
Wait, did you write this non sequiter in defense of rebul’s garbage take?
Christ no.
I was trying to explain the main point in Thomas Picketty’s Capital in the 21st Century in a way they might understand, but I soon saw that I had vastly underestimated how hard that is to do.
That’s my bad, next time I’ll either take the time to spell it out a lot more clearly, or just walk on by.
Not sure how you came to the conclusion I’m defending their argument, when I can see you just downvoted me for telling them I don’t understand them?