Forum Post: Equality of Opportunity
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 9, 2011, 2:29 p.m. EST by SocialDem16
(83)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What I keep seeing over and over again is that this movement is socialist and we are a bunch of communists who don't want to work. You know the typical, "if you are not rich or don't have a job, it is your own fault". What these people ignore is the fact that this country was based on the ideal of equality of opportunity (not to be confused with equality of results, which communism relies on). Equality of opportunity holds that, we all come into this world or born into this country with the same opportunities to succeed. However, as times get more complicated (through technology and globilization), more is required to provide the same opportunities. If we are born with bad health, we do not have the same opportunities others have. If we are born into a poor family, we are required to take out loans to go to school, which requires repayment and a decrease in income, while if you are rich, your schooling is paid for by your parents, so you benefit fully from your new career. Only when health care and education is provided to all citizens will we have true EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY!
A good reason why a capitalist country requires a safety net is that (simple macro economics) in a health economy, 3.5% are going to be unemployed at any given time. This is excepted as a fact and these are the people that are actively searching for employment. So to help the 3.5% get jobs and not get sick and prevent them from getting said jobs, we need to provide them with education (for example manufacturing is disappearing, so we need to offer education in different fields for those people, so they will not be left behind) and health care. This is not communism and/or socialism, it is making the market work more fair, so everyone can compete, not just the well to do. All in all, equality of opportunity should not be equated with communism because it ensures opportunity for those to compete and advance in a system that is supposed to provide strong socioeconomic mobility.
end bush tax cuts , rebuild America bridges and roads , invest in middle class not banking class thats the occupy wall street message.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/friends-romans-countrymen-lend-me-your-ears/
True, there is no equality of opportunity, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government in order to achieve that equality of opportunity, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to support a Presidential Candidate Committee at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
This kind of equality you're asking for is impossible. The government can't right every injustice. Some people are born rich, that doesn't mean it's fair to take them down so they have the same opportunities as someone born poor.
Education is offered for everyone. There are community colleges and trade schools that are very affordable. Not everyone needs a 4 year university education. And by the way, as long as you're smart, you're better off being poor than middle class and going to college. You get a full ride while the people whose parents make 100k (not rich btw) have to pay the full bill.
Again, I'm not asking for equality of results, which would force government to right every justice, but opportunity. And trade school and community college by themselves is not equality of opportunity. It is now a fact that even a four year degree is not sufficient to land a job and more fields are requiring post-grad education, which is extremely pricey. Now factor in the fact that education costs are increasing a lot faster than wages and price inflation, that dream is becoming more and more impossible as the years go on.
Again, that would be full on Communism.
And a 4 year degree by itself has never been enough to land a good job. If you haven't done something more to gain experience (like an unpaid internship) your choices are much narrower.
As for post grad education, experience can usually be substituted for a Master's degree.
Bottom line: Life ain't easy. The boom we had in the last twenty years made it seem easier, but it couldn't last. I'm not saying things aren't more fucked up than they should be, but this is not a productive avenue you're trying to take.
Providing education and health care is not full on communism because everything else would be free to compete on the market. Sounds like you have no idea what real communism or socialism is? Maybe you need to pick up some Marx and read for a change. Life is not easy, but we can provide more so it is not as hard. We are civilized for a reason, to benefit everyone that takes part in society, not to make it harder for everyone. when the top 1% see there income double to 25% of all US income, when before the 80s, it was 10% of all income, something is wrong!
I've read both Marx and Rand, and I don't happen to agree with either. I have had enough of your elitist arrogance, though, so good day sir.
Elitist arrogance my a**! Full on communism is far from a social democracy! Please define communism for me and tell me how a market system with universal health care and education provided through taxes communism? And keep in mind, there is a free market for everything else? I am just sick and tired of everyone like you who dismisses any improvement on capitalism as communist! It is dangerous and ignorant!
How about this: complete public funding for higher education is a terrible idea.
It's already too easy to get a bachelor's degree, and for that reason, it has lost much of its value. If you give everyone a bachelor's degree, then companies just raise the bar - which is exactly what has already happened!
There are a ton of jobs that shouldn't really require a 4 year degree, but they do simply because there are so many people who do have the degree, they might as well narrow the field of applicants.
What I mean is that the only way to achieve what you want (no matter how you spin it) is full on communism, which is why you've made a blatant statement otherwise. It won't work in a capitalist system, so it's moot. A drawback to capitalism is that there are winners and losers, and you can't make it otherwise.
FWIW I support a single-payer universal healthcare system. Healthcare is a right, education is a privilege.
Attack my position, not my intelligence, please.
I would like to first apologize for "attacking your intelligence" and should've been more civil in my counterpoints. However, I do not appreciate people describing something like (going with what you do agree) universal health care as communist. At least at this point you should agree, it is dangerous and ignores the fact that people will die without proper health care and it should be a right. I give an example for conservative (there actually are pretty good examples of conservative reasons for universal health care - side note) people, to pull the human element into the factor. For example, if John, who didn't work hard as hard as Mike falls sick to a terminal illness, and Mike has an overabundance of the cure to this disease and they are neighbors, is it just for Mike to deny John that cure, just because John didn't work hard enough?
Your points have weight, I won't dismiss them, but as the system of education stands today, it is not fair. Something has to be done about the rising cost of education, to make it more affordable for everyone. You have to admit that there is something wrong when education costs are increasing far more than price inflation and wage increases. If we don't make it full on public provided, what market solutions can we provide? The loan system is horrendous and has the effect of increasing income for the rich (those that profit off the interest) and taking away income of the student.
and if we provide education for all, not everyone is going to have a degree. The hard workers will get the good grades and will complete the degree, while the lazy workers will get crappy grades and even if they do get a degree, they won't know how to do anything with it and it will reflect in their work after graduation, again if they do graduate.
This just isn't true. Look at China's college graduate glut.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jun2007/gb20070605_780984.htm
The U.S. has a similar glut, which is part of why the OWS movement exists. People have been misled into thinking that going to college guarantees their employment and happiness, and this simply is not true. And once they have the education, people will not settle for jobs for which they are overqualified - another signature of the OWS movement. It's not fair, people have the right to be pissed off about it and I support that. I also support many of the OWS demands, but I just don't think yours should be one of them.
Every solution breeds more problems, but what I worry about is access for all without restrictions based on income, race, religion or creed. I base my believe on morality and what is right imo.
However, at least we agree on the aspect of OWS that you listed your support for. This forum is for us to agree, not agree, and ultimately alter our believes. It is part of democracy and without it, we would never improve on our current system, which touches at the center of the movement, which is to alter this system and make it benefit the people again, and not the corporation and only the elite.
On that last point I can wholeheartedly agree.
And to the first point, that is why I see it simply moving further and further toward communism. China's government made it a priority to increase college enrollment and graduation, and as a result they have more qualified people than they can use. Now they are calling for MORE government intervention to ensure these people can get jobs. It's a downward spiral that comes from too much government influence.
Broader point: decreasing the government's control (not regulation) over markets would also decrease the extent to which corporations can exert their power. This is why the subsidies and loopholes need to be eliminated ASAP, and the government needs to start focusing on its role as a regulator.
I agree that subsidies and loopholes need to be eliminated.
England provides both education and health care for all of its people and I don't see them moving towards communism anytime soon? What I advocate is to take the good elements of socialism and the good elements of capitalism and combine them. I would never support a full on communist state, unless it was pure, which like I have said is impossible today, so defeats the purpose. We have never seen a full on communist state as Marx envisioned
At least we do agree on the fact that something needs to be done and I recognize I am not the only person in this country, so we need to cooperate and come up with a solution.
It's not free in England. Tuition can be as high as 3000 pounds a year according to Wikipedia, and a recent vote will raise the cap to 9000 pounds. An unpopular move, no doubt, but I think that says something.
oops meant France :) Thanks for pointing that out.
Then I present England's recent move as a counterpoint ;)
and I have read them both and while I think the world they envision would be ideal, since we have human emotion, it is impossible. But we can take some good elements out of both and provide a strong safety net, so others can COMPETE in the free market. If you are born sick or born porn, it is a lot harder for you to compete in the market.
Right, but the only unalienable rights outlined in the Preamble are life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. Your premise goes much further than our founding documents. The poor are at a disadvantage. This is certainly true. But we are talking about education here right? There are many public and private scholarships that they have an opportunity to apply for that middle-class and affluent students don't. The playing field is leveled somewhat in that respect, as it should be. Those born intelligent but poor can reach the top. Those born unintelligent and poor will stay poor, almost certainly. I would argue that in a capitalist system, they should (but a minimum level of poverty can and should be avoided).
I'd like to do something about the unintelligent and wealthy that get the college degree anyway, but there's not really a solution within reason.
You're talking about a document that was written before the complexities of modern society existed. I mean just look at the last century! Things have changed and become more complex, so we have to alter that document to provide more protections. The pursuit of happiness is a right, so we have to provide for people (to an extent), so they make that pursuit possible. And not trying to be a jerk and mean this with all due respect, but those unalienable rights are not in the preamble to the US Constitution. Those are included in the Declaration of Independence and more notably listed and protected in the Bill of Rights.
My mistake. Checked and it's still the preamble to the Declaration, but I did imply the Constitution.
Still doesn't take from the substance of your argument. It is important to note that the pursuit of happiness is translated into the right of property, but when will someone's labor be considered as their labor? That's where and why an economic bill of rights should be included in our Constitution.
Especially considering Employees are considered the property of their employer in our system today.
How so? I don't see that at all. If they were property they wouldn't be allowed to quit.
Example, court decisions on Walmart and union participation and how their workers are not afforded the right to assemble. In those cases, Walmart's right of property over its workers is more important then the workers right to assemble. This ultimately allows Walmart to punish and fire anyone that might assemble with other workers to improve upon their conditions.
Yeah, that's a problem. I don't see it as making the workers "property" but clearly it's a violation of the workers' constitutional freedom.
property in the sense that Walmart can do whatever it wants with its workers, including firing them or peacefully assembling. And "right to property" was the reason why Walmart was allowed to do just that, just like freedom of speech is now afforded to corporations because they are now defined as people.
Another ridiculous court decision that needs to be overturned. As a poster in another forum I read said, "Corporations can be citizens when Texas can execute one."
Yea I saw a sign that had that quote at the park last week. Very powerful and true!
and when I say, the reason, it is in the court opinion.