This is a silly line of reasoning. As more people grow wealthy, we find more ways to systematically mistreat those who have not. It's not just that the poor started poor and stayed that way, it's that the rest of us find ways to make things even harder for them as our comparative wealth grows. Being poor is most definitely a bad thing.
This is clearly wrong.
On the question of why some flourish and others do not, I think you're just echoing the point that has persisted through this entire thread.
This is your entire statement. If you're wondering why some are able to flourish while others aren't, getting hung up on the technicalities of a pointless statement is a poor start. We know that people are born under various circumstances ranging from remarkably poor to exceptionally rich, and we know that's the best indicator of future wealth. Yes, they have to inherit the money at some point, but they grow up experiencing the benefits (and drawbacks) of that wealth - whether or not it's in their names.
Health of mother - Advantage. Mother being able to take care of child in the early years - Advantage. Dad present - Advantage. Encouraging, safe home environment - Advantage. Parents that expect and encourage excellence (sports, academic) - Advantage. Never going hungry - Advantage. Going to schools with resources and good teachers - Advantage. Going to good college - Advantage. Parents connections (business and academic) - Advantage.
These advantages compound.
There will be outliers with none or only some of this who still happen to make it. They are not common, and not proof that the system works as intended.
Not even close to true... Simply look at socioeconomic status across generations.
I don't think the distinction of "babies have $0" is relevant when considering all the other potential advantages. What are you getting at with that claim? I don't think it's particularly clear, judging by the other replies.
It’s crazy how many think they have a monopoly on intelligence by virtue of being able to tell the machine what to do.
A logical statement in isolation is seen as sufficient to win arguments (like “babies have no money at birth”).
Wow, thanks Socrates, now I see the light. The scales have fallen from my eyes.
EDIT:
Furthermore, originally you stated:
> The fact remains that everyone starts with nothing
It's already been illustrated this is false. If you believe quality of life at birth is different, then by definition, everyone does not start off with nothing, or zero. People start off with the qualities possessed at birth.
Technically, I made the point. I'm not sure how I can miss my own point? Granted, I may have poorly phrased it leading to others missing the point, which is my bad, but if you're not going to try and let me clarify, I'm not sure what we're doing here?
> The point is that the quality of life upon birth is different.
Sure. I cannot disagree with that, but it's miles away from this conversation.
> It's already been illustrated this is false.
I'm afraid I still don't see it. That point was made in reference to earlier discussion specifically about wealth (again, something you measure on a balance sheet, not factors like fetal health). Their parents might have wealth that can be transferred to the child, but that is not the same as starting with wealth.
We (as a society) have hospitals available which greatly decrease infant mortality. We have widely available nutrition that keeps people from starving. These are steps that we, as a society, have taken to improve upon the default state (having nothing) of humans--including fetal health. Perhaps rather than focusing on how to make people in poverty more comfortable, we should focus on how to get them out of poverty.
That's not the same as claiming all people start on a level playing field.
Why do people insist on believing nonsense?
> Why do people insist on believing nonsense?
Why are people trying to twist this discussion into things it never was?
What you should not say is that "they both start off with nothing". Wealth is more than money. In fact, wealth literally just means an abundance of possessions; prosperity. What dictionary are you using that says wealth is only measured by dollars in a bank account?
By the way, the article specifically mentions health, so...
But wealth isn't an amount in a bank account? Given the earlier context of this thread, I felt my comment should have been clear enough, but granted textual communication can be difficult (especially for emotional topics where many have their response composed well in advance) and clearly I failed. I tried to clarify it on several other occasions before you commented, so any errors in conveying my original message should have been resolved before you posted yours, no?
> Wealth is more than money
Money being only a tool of measurement, I think that is a given. But that is like saying that the weather is more than temperature. Sure, but what are we supposed to take from that?
The claim is societal. We (as humans) started out with nothing. Over thousands of years, we built religions, governments, businesses, laws, science, and everything else, which ultimately resulted in a lot of us having a lot better quality of life. But our default state (as humans) is to have nothing. That some people are still in poverty shouldn't be seen like a disease to be treated--it should be seen as a condition all humans effectively default to. They just haven't benefited from all the systems and processes we've built that the rest of us have, and we should figure out how to get them to (or modify our systems so they do).
Again: This is in no way claiming each person starts on a level playing field.
If you change "nothing", with "no possessions, talents, abilities, or skills", which is the same thing, then you'll see why what you're saying is illogical.
I'm not sure how to respond to this. Have you read a history book? At one point humans were in caves, with effectively no possessions and terrible lives. That was poverty, and it affected everyone. Whether or not one cave man was born smarter than the other is irrelevant.
Over time, we developed all of these systems that made life better for the vast majority of us, yet some of us still live in poverty, because the default human state is to have nothing. That in no way implies a level playing field among two different people born today.
> If you change "nothing", with "no possessions, talents, abilities, or skills", which is the same thing, then you'll see why what you're saying is illogical.
You're still missing the point. I don't know how I can rephrase this in a way that won't be intentionally misinterpreted.