IMO the right mechanism is for people of [insert desired demographic] to start companies and make them successful.
It's not that simple.
I’m not saying I’m for this. I’m not and you would have to kill me to get to my kids. Just seems like the most logical solution to an otherwise impossible problem.
Because that worked really well in Communist Romania. "Let's make sure things are equally terrible for everyone, then we can call that a level playing field" is not sensible policy.
I think you could do a lot of stuff to provide support to all kids without going all the way to universal government custody. Things like (optional) government paid universal day care and after school care, government paid universal health care for minors, food/housing/etc stipends (like the child tax credit, but bigger), and arguably better pay for teachers and smaller class sizes. These things wouldn't end inequality, but might more kids up to good enough resources.
You could also pull a China and outlaw tutoring/test prep to reduce the advantages wealth can provide.
Violence in the home (most goes unreported), Mocking education in the home, Drug abuse in the home, An example of single parent pregnancy everywhere, General neglect - nobody to read to you
These are all cultural things. Culture is the software that gets installed on you and some people are getting a shitty software version that almost guarantees failure. If you don’t believe that, watch any documentary on rural Appalachia.
That's either a bit strong or a bit already true, depending on how you look at it; the state sets boundaries and responsibilities on the relationships parents have with children, and if they violate those boundaries or fail to live up to those responsibilities, the legal relationship between parent and child can be terminated.
I'm for it is a more practical way. It is the state's responsibility to be good at raising children, because some children will have no family to take care of them. We (at least in the US) horribly fail at this, which is a clear signal that our society is selfish and irresponsible. This should be changed. People with shitty parents should be jealous of state wards. If we can't be successful when we have complete control, we shouldn't have much to say about how well parents are doing except in the cases of gross neglect and abuse.
We can't figure out what to do with constituencies that don't have lobbyists.
I'm not sure that's the case.
We are obviously not talking about being born into wealth. Middle-class people still need to accumulate capital first, generally by working, something that's not always possible (for an extreme example, take e.g. ~90% unemployment rate for autistic college grads).
Even if we were talking about wealthy families, that doesn't count out being disowned, etc. for being gay or transgender.
In any case, check out these links: https://theconversation.com/transgender-americans-are-more-l...
https://nwlc.org/income-security-is-elusive-for-many-transge...
Also, this law was actually about requiring that any non-white or LGBT person be on the board; the LGBT part being highlighted is part of Newsweek's anti-gay agenda.
So, if owning your own home is a big part of your wealth over a life time, and your parents and their parents were discriminated against and prevented from accessing those mechanisms, it makes it much less likely that you will today be born in a wealthy or a poor family.
Look up redlining on wikipedia if you want specifics.
I include women because of this:
> I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results
AFAIK most of these studies focused on "women in boardrooms/leadership"
This is not always true for other minorities. A random black American isn't as likely to have been born into wealth as a random white American.