Social Darwinism

More multi-article posts!  This one on a hot topic in politics...

Miles Corak on research by Isabel Sawhill regarding the permanence of inequality (via Marginal Revolution).
Robert Reich on his beef with Social Darwinism (via Mark Thoma).

I guess the main question, which I have yet to see answered, is how is Social Darwinism any different from biology?  If anything, the former article by Corak appears to reinforce the notion; if you're hosed at birth, not much can be done to be less hosed when you grow up.  Response to that after my answer to the difference in biological and social Darwinism.

In biology, not much can be done to ensure that your offspring and their offspring aren't hopeless.  A not-so-camouflaged prey is going to bear not-so-camouflaged prey, even if you give it a jacket of sorts so it doesn't get eaten.  However, if you give a broke guy a million dollars, assuming he's not stupid about the windfall, can pass on the benefits of the change in situation to his kids.  Moving out of hopelessness isn't so possible in biology, even if you assist it (unless we change the genetics of the creature); moving people around in socioeconomic classes with assistance, and the change can be permanent.

In response to anybody who might claim that Sawhill's research only makes Social Darwinism more of fact, I say "nay"; there are two options for what we see.  (1) Social Darwinism is true (I doubt this), (2) we're not giving enough transfers.  My story: let's say all you need to move up the socioeconomic ladder is a BA.  University costs $10,000 to attend.  Those low on the ladder cannot afford any tuition; all their budget is tied up already.  If the government gives out anything less than $10,000, we won't see any changes because the wealth transfer isn't enough.  So, with Sawhill's research, you could actually argue that we're not giving out enough.

Yessir.