Hacker News Reader

Comment by lapcat | Hacker News Reader

> Even if everyone in the world got free entry to Harvard (no jokes please)

It's not a joke, because some students do get "free" entry to Harvard, due to their parents paying for it.

i'm not sure where this idea arises, that parents doing things for their children is the root of all social evil. it's a bit ridiculous on its face, since it's a prime way to improve the lot of the next generation

Nobody was talking about "social evil". But it's plainly the root of much economic inequality, which is the topic.

Separate questions:

(1) Should we accept some level of economic inequality in society?

(2) Are the wealthy more "deserving" of their wealth than the non-wealthy?

It's perfectly consistent to answer (1) Yes and (2) No to those questions.

Capitalism is an economic system, not an ethical system. The "invisible hand of the market" is not God handing out rewards and punishment, though some people seem to believe that.

For sure. And I'd add that the acceptance of inequality as a reward does not imply anything about inherited inequality.

Even if we grant the proposition that a good way for society-wide progress is to harness the desire of some to have superior positions by forcing them to work hard at creating value for others, it doesn't really follow that inheritance is a good idea. Indeed, you could argue that it's just the opposite, if we really want a nation of hard workers, we have to make sure the youth can't get away with being lazy just because of some historic success that they didn't have any part in.

Parents doing things for their children *to give them unearned advantage* is in fact *a* root cause of social evil.

It’s saying “Because this person is a Jones, they deserve a spot at Yale even though others are more academically deserving, and we will pay you for that privilege.”

This is also why grade inflation happens at these institutions: “You can’t fail him, he’s a Jones!”

And some get free entry to Harvard because they got admitted and have full need-based scholarships.

You're missing the point, which is that kids who "chose" the right parents get vastly more opportunities than those with less luck at birth, and the lucky ones don't have to work as hard or have as much talent as the unlucky.

Do you think the world would be better off if this effect were eliminated, ie that people could not preferentially help their own children? Or are you simply pointing out that life is not fair?

> Do you think the world would be better off if this effect were eliminated

I don't know. I do think the world would be better off if we eliminated homelessness, hunger, student loan debt, medical debt, and political campaign financing. These are some of the worst consequences of economic inequality in society.

> Or are you simply pointing out that life is not fair?

Well, I personally don't think that so-called "meritocracy" is fair or ideal. I was born with some advantages over the majority of people, and my academic talents started to show at a relatively young age (with no "hard work" — it was easy work!), but I don't think I "deserved" to be born that way, nor do I think that I "deserve" more money than other people as a result of my advantages.

I understand capitalistic supply and demand, and that may be a decent economic system. It's not an inherently ethical system, however.

why does everything have to be a dual. in life practically nothing is. I can both be biased towards my children's success, and still understand that as a society we're all much better off giving some opportunity to the generally downtrodden.

in most european countries, university is mostly free. and they offer financial support for those who need it (because you still have to pay for food and rent if you can't live with your parents), which effectively does eliminate the ability for parents to help their children get into a good university.

Everyone else pays to network with them, so it probably makes sense to give them free entry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com