Someone should tell Matt that Communism fails. He is a Communist - pure and simple - that is their philosophy. The USSR collapsed under that same philosophy. China continues, but only because they have started to turn (businesswise) to a more Capitalistic society.

Unless he thinks that our entire system, as it stands, has totally failed, then his conclusion is completely erroneous. As I think most everyone can see, our system is not only alive and well, but thriving (apparently with no thanks to Matt and his friends who don't want to work).

I really think Matt needs to learn economics - it seems to be a lack in his education. Maybe we should point him in the direction of Thomas Sowell...

That's a great idea, Teresa! Think we could get Thomas Sowell interested?

Unfortunately, I don't have time to read the article you linked to, but from the snippet you included, it looks to me like his fundamental thesis is flawed. I don't know of anyone who is "born with the inclination and ability to become financially successful." That inclination and ablility are a result of how people are raised by their parents.

I'll have to read the entire article later, but I'll bet his entire argument falls apart because of this flaw in his thesis.

I went to a small college run by the Christian Brothers order, by the way...

I flunked out of a respected second tier engineering school, and dropped out of a community college and a state university. I just barely got by until I figured out that if I waited till after work to get high and stopped at a reasonable hour and condition I wouldn't have to go thru the unpleasantness of job-hunting as often.

I not only wasn't born with the inclination and ability to become financially successful, I wasn't raised with it. My parents were leftists and my father was freelance; I had to learn everything as an adult. Our income is still below the national median, but our net worth isn't. We are doing work we love, and living quite well, thank you. We deserve what we have more so than those who think we don't.

I don't know if anyone else has detected this but I've noticed that in order to make these types of arguments the left has redefined what upper, lower and middle class mean.

Used to be that the American Dream was home ownership. Everyone owns homes nowadays though. I have read posts from lefties explaining that people that own their own home and have $30K in a 401K are kidding themselves if they think they're middle class - because if they lost their job they'd lose everything they own within 10 years.

Anyway, I think the flaw in his argument is centered on his implied assertion that wealth isn't distributed fairly in our economy. I think it is for the most part. Yes, there are people that are filthy rich and yes there are people that struggle. But we have an enormous middle class (like me) that own very comfortable homes, enjoy high-speed internet, airconditioning, 4 TV's, home computer networks, 2 cars, parks, swimming pools, vacations blahx3.

Am I poor then? I think not. I consider myself very lucky. I'm just not into this class-warfare stuff they love so much on the left though.

To provide some perspective, I can relate how income is distributed in France. I work as part of a three company alliance in the semiconductor industry. This industry pays very well worldwide. However, the head of the group that I'm in works for a European company, and I'm paid approximately double what he is paid. He has at least 15 more years of experience than I do, but I am paid more just because my company pays on the US scale, not the European scale.

The average starting salary for an engineer with a bachelors degree here is about what a well paid administrative assistant makes in the US, and they don't get raises the same way we do. So compared to my local colleagues here in France, I'm filthy rich. In the US, I'm probably "upper middle class" at best.

There is a key difference I've seen here, though. Even though the income is less, the vast majority of folks here seem much less stressed, far less worried than the average American. Is that because they have a "nanny state" that gives unemployment payments almost indefinitely? Is it because even if they lose their jobs they still have some health care, even if it isn't as rapid as in the US? I don't know, perhaps it's due to other cultural factors. The difference in stress levels is real, though. I'm not the first expatriate here to notice it.

None of this makes the thesis proposed by Mr.Yglesias any more valid, however, because he is basing his arguments upon several fallacies that I won't discuss here since it *is* Beth's blog!!!

Jack, feel free to discuss anything you want!

OK, Beth, then here it is:

Fallacy #1:

True equality of opportunity will require true equality of outcome.

This is empirically false on the face of it. I can use a quantum mechanics proof, if you want a truly scientific basis for the proof, but instead I will point towards the number of children of rich people who turn into utter f*ck ups, while the number of people from "po folk stock" turn into amazing successes. The ratio of rich f*ck ups to "po folk makin good" is definitely in favor of the "po folk", despite the rich ones having a far better set of opportunities.

Fallacy #2:

There are reasons to structure incentives so as to encourage a certain amount of hard work so as to increase overall prosperity, but this is a question of pragmatics not desert, and only worth doing if overall prosperity is being managed so as to cause widespread prosperity.

To paraphrase Clint Eastwood as Bill Mumy from "Unforgiven": Deserve's got nothing to do with it.

It is impossible to guarantee "equality of opportunity", just as much as if there were true equality of opportunity it would be impossible to guarantee "equality of results". The best we can hope to accomplish is this - in the short term, use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to spread the word about how hard work does indeed pay off. Recall the effectiveness of the egg in the frying pan ads in the anti-drug campaigns of the 80s. In the longer term, we need to mount a multi-pronged offensive that includes turining teaching at the primary and secondary school levels into a true profession, with training and pay to match at least that required to teach at the college level. We need to encourage Hollywood to show more stories of how those who earn an education reap the fruits of their labors. We need to change the culture in a way that is subversive more than overt, because overt messages are dismissed. A simple statement of "we need to structure incentives so as to encourage a certain amount of hard work so as to increas overall prosperity" is disingenuous at best, and complete wishful thinking in the realistic case.

Fallacy #3:

...the insight that equality of opportunity and the cult of the self-made man is an utter fraud both empirically and morally. Meritocracy is an appalling ideal.

I'm going to call shenanigans on this one right away (see South Park if you don't know the reference). Excuse me??? Meritocracy is an appalling ideal? According to what system of morals and ethics? Is it truly ethical to deprive someone who has worked for what he has earned of the fruits of his labor to provide for someone who has not? How is "merit" defined, if not someone who has indeed worked and *earned* a position higher than others? Any rational system of morals and ethics rewards meritorious behavior. Stating that "Meritocracy is an appalling ideal" refutes over 3000 years of what is considered ethical and moral behavior.