[flagged]
On a more narrow level -- if people have to worry about food on the table, the stress itself causes IQ to drop, also in experiments.
Of course there are exceptions, but on a statistical level, poverty is inherited -- because of what you mention, not in spite of it!
Three or more if you count more realistic viewpoints.
> Two kinds of people in this system. One of them thinks if you work hard you can climb your way out of poverty through your own self determination and hard work.
Self determination and hard work is necessary for success but it doesn't mean much without opportunity. Opportunity is unevenly distributed.
What one person see as value, which creates someone else's opportunity, is often determined by subjective social and cultural factors and isn't always objective or rational.
If you are unlucky, you have to work more.
If opportunity doesn't present itself, you go look for it.
I studied in the States and some people at my college were being paid $700/mo. on top of dorms if they took at least a handful of classes.
If poverty is inherited it's because of a negative culture and worldview is passed down, not because of money.
That's why they get paid more.
It's about something new versus what we have tried to this point.
Think it's unfair for one person to negotiate against a company? Maybe, but that's where unions become useful.
There's ill will against them, and they're not widely used (at least in tech), but maybe that's the problem. If so it's not a problem worth tearing down the whole system.
Actually, it seems like not even in the past you did, since many many companies were started in a garage.
Here's Steve Wozniak debunking the Apple garage myth:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/05/steve-woz...
And an entire thread debunking the "started in a garage" for the market dominators of today:
https://twitter.com/historic_ly/status/1119980086420299777
These founders have always had some access to resources above and beyond what is considered "standard issue." It's about time we get realistic about the necessary conditions that were required to start these radically successful companies, because we shouldn't design economies or social policies around myths.
I'm amazed people don't see that and simplify the whole thing into "owners exploit workers". It's just absurd.