So, we have two thought experiments:
1. Ability is 100% inheritable (an average of your parents'), and income is a direct function of ability. A straight up meritocracy.
2. Ability is determined at birth by a dice roll. Straight up luck.
Are either scenarios the "land of opportunity" to straight cash, homey?
Noah thinks no - he thinks a third variable is what creates opportunity: effort. I agree. However, he says:
"Furthermore, I don't think we want this kind of society because of a concern for economic efficiency. Leisure is fun! Rewarding hard work does not necessarily increase utility, even if it increases production. Instead, I think that our desire to reward hard work and punish slot comes from a moral value judgment that work is good in and of itself."
But I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. It's not like we have to go with a utility maximization problem where only income matters; in fact, having effort makes a more interesting economic efficiency problem than the two thought experiments, as income isn't given. Effort level is chosen endogenously.
The more pertinent comment by Noah on this is the political one:
"Libertarians and conservatives who claim that America is still a "land of opportunity" are saying that it's still the case that hard work still gets rewarded here, as it ought to be; and those who complain about intergenerational immobility are claiming that hard work isn't as rewarded these days as it ought to be. So I think both sides should realize that this is what they're arguing about. "
It would be nice to see if that latter part is true, all formal-econometrics-like, but I'm leaning towards agreement. I can only imagine that more hard work is needed to earn a certain level of income, coming out of a tough neighborhood, compared to being [insert heiress' name here], ability being equal. I'm inclined to believe that conservatives who think having haves and have-nots is an ideal situation also ignore the latter part. Many of the comments on Noah's blog have some good points, and Jazzbumpa's ring true in this context:
"Ideally, opportunity would mean that
1) the pie is growing faster than the population, so that everyone has the opportunity to increase his slice;
2) the game isn't RIGGED to favor a certain class that is elite by birth or some other arbitrary accident of good fortune, like race;
3) success is, therefore, some function of effort, ability, business acumen, creativity and - yes, unavoidably -luck
4) access to resources like training, education, financing and gainful employment is close to equal."
It would be nice to see if that latter part is true, all formal-econometrics-like, but I'm leaning towards agreement. I can only imagine that more hard work is needed to earn a certain level of income, coming out of a tough neighborhood, compared to being [insert heiress' name here], ability being equal. I'm inclined to believe that conservatives who think having haves and have-nots is an ideal situation also ignore the latter part. Many of the comments on Noah's blog have some good points, and Jazzbumpa's ring true in this context:
"Ideally, opportunity would mean that
1) the pie is growing faster than the population, so that everyone has the opportunity to increase his slice;
2) the game isn't RIGGED to favor a certain class that is elite by birth or some other arbitrary accident of good fortune, like race;
3) success is, therefore, some function of effort, ability, business acumen, creativity and - yes, unavoidably -luck
4) access to resources like training, education, financing and gainful employment is close to equal."
A rigged game sucks, this game of life is probably (likelihood of 99%?) rigged, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are plenty of people out there who don't think the game is rigged...
Yes, I'll make it political - anyone who doesn't think the game is in any way rigged shouldn't be making decisions for society.
No comments:
Post a Comment