After reading Namit Arora's, "What Do We Deserve?," post a quote you find interesting and/or salient (meaningful) and then a discussion question/comment to follow.
^This post is due by class time on Thursday (8am)
Respond to at least 1 other post and engage in a MEANINGFUL conversation with the author (not simply along the lines of "I agree" or "this is so true" or "great post" or "I disagree"). Respond to the author by extending or complicating their ideas.
^This is due by Monday at 9:00pm
You must both post and respond in order to get full credit for the discussion.
**Throughout your posts, make connections to your life, the world at large, connect ideas to other texts we've read or videos we've watched or ideas we've discussed. Go beyond the Arora's text with your observations, questions, comments, responses, etc.
Haley Cutchshaw
ReplyDelete“Wait a minute, what about the role of the personal drive and effort we put into cultivating our talents? Don’t we deserve the rewards that come from our striving? Not really, says Rawls” (Arora, 88).
If humans put time and effort into something they really wanted and got it, why do they not deserve it? They worked for it, so now it is theirs?
People may work hard at their job for many years and save up money for a house and to raise their family, do they not deserve that? Also people in third world countries that have struggled and come out of poverty, don’t they deserve that?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with your argument and the examples you give to support it. Like you, I disagree with Rawls because if a human puts time and effort into something then they deserve the reward. Rawls also mentions his belief that our natural gifts aren't our own doing so we don't deserve the reward. We don't have control of these natural gifts. I feel that it doesn't matter if its our own doing but wether we choose to act and benefit on the factors are offered.
DeleteQuestion: "They believe that we are the authors of our own destiny and whoever wins the race is morally deserving of the rewards they obtain from the market-- and its flip side, that we morally deserve our failure too, and its consequences." (Pg. 88).
ReplyDelete- Is this why there is a stigma against people who are homeless and/or use government assistance programs such as welfare? Why do many people believe that many of the poor have caused their own economic situation on themselves?
Comment: "Americans also believe that their odds of rising to the top are far better than they actually are; social mobility is quite low by international standards. A kid from the poorest fifth of all households has a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percentile income bracket, while a kid from the richest fifth has a 22 percent chance." (Pg. 91)
- I found this quote interesting because in my sociology class we have been discussing about stratification, class, and inequality. The class textbook "Essentials of Sociology" states that social mobility from working class to upper middle class is rare. Researchers Peter Blau and Otis Duncan assert that the key factor behind occupational status was educational attainment which is influenced by family social status. This means that children with poor working class parents are at a major disadvantage compared to a children with wealthier families.
Question: The comment above could also relate to Arora's libertarian model paragraph in it he says "So while the racetrack may look nice and shiny, the runners don't begin at the same starting point." (Pg. 87) If one child from a poor background and one child from a wealthy background both reach the top is it fair to say that they both deserve to be at the top?
"The libertarian model... this model offers a formal equality of opportunity -- making it a clear advance over feudal or caste arrangements -- so anyone can, in theory, strive to compete and win. But in practice, people don't have real equality of opportunity due to various disadvantages, for example, of family income, social class, gender, race, caste, etc. So while the racetrack may look nice or shiny, the runners don't begin at the same starting point" (Arora 87).
ReplyDeleteCOMPARED TO...
"The meritocratic model... recognizes such inequities and tries to correct for socioeconomic disadvantages. At its best, meritocracy takes real equality of opportunity seriously and tries to achieve it through various means: Head Start programs, education and job training, subsidized healthcare and housing, and so forth" (Arora 87-88).
Comment: The libertarian model is more realistic than the meritocratic model because as Arora mentions, not everyone has an equal opportunity. Arora does a great job addressing and complicating an argument that might be expected but Arora doesn’t suggest complications for the meritocratic model other than natural gifts.
Question: What are some complications that can come from the meritocratic model? (Ex. Cannot assists everyone to give them equal opportunities.)
I agree with what you are saying, but the government could make it impossible for people to pass down their businesses and money to their children immediately making it more of an even playing field for people.
Delete"The task of breaking the spell, then, requires telling new kinds of stories, engaging in vigorous public debate, and employing our best arts of persuasion" (Arora 91).
ReplyDeleteLike the video we watched in class of the rallies for AIDS there could be protests to go against the distribution of wealth in our society today but since everyone would have an extreme p.o.v on this would it get too out of hand?
Is it possible to break the spell and create a more equal society? Would this be a good idea or do you think it would lead to a communist society?
"The meritocratic model, often associated with the United States, recognizes such inequities and tries to correct for socioeconomic disadvantages."
ReplyDeleteI feel like it is completely normal for everyone to believe that all people should start with a clean slate. However, this doesn't seem like the answer that would benefit our country the greatest.
Many large companies were made in result of people starting ahead of the game in a sense, having more money. If people didn't inherit money or start ahead, would large businesses grow as fast and as large as they currently do?
I understand how it can be easier for companies that have a head start from others to grow more rapidly and richer. But I don't necessary agree with the fact that if people didn't inherit money or start ahead then businesses won't grow as fast as they have been doing. I'm a true believer that no matter how poor you are financially you can create a successful business with a little hard work. It will be harder for a business that starts from nothing to succeed, but it doesn't mean that it is not possible. Just take a look at the many companies today that started from almost nothing. Companies like Apple, Dell, Whole Food Market, Starbucks, Nordstrom, and eBay are companies that started from people who were not wealthy but rather had visions to either make people's life easier or to fulfill a dream. These companies started from nothing but with hard work and a little of sacrificing they ended up being very large, powerful, successful, and wealthy companies. To answer your question, I don't personally think that businesses will ever stop growing fast regardless on how much they had to start with. All that might change is that there will be more companies that know how to work hard to fulfill its goals, since that is what got them to the place they are at now.
Delete“Even if we somehow leveled socioeconomic disparities, the winners of the race would still be the fastest runners, due in part to a natural lottery. People are often born with certain talents and attributes – for instance, oratory, musical acumen, physical beauty and health, athleticism, good memory and cognition, extroversion – that give them unearned advantages.”
ReplyDeleteWouldn’t the “natural lottery” be due to a person’s genetics? A person’s genetics may give them the structure to be athletic or to have the vocal chords to sing or even give them a certain look of beauty. So in part it would not be the persons fault, but it would be the person’s parents fault for giving them the certain genetics, and cycle would keep going to their parents and their parents and so forth wouldn’t it? Also, I don’t think people are “born with certain talents or attributes,” because wouldn’t people still have to develop the certain skill or attribute and channel it to become good or great at it?
I can see where you're coming from on your comment on natural lottery but are the person's parents really to blame? The parents don't have control over what traits they pass on to their child. Also your comment about people are not born with certain talents or attributes I agree/disagree with it at the same time. I agree in part that yes, most people have to cultivate their talents and skills to become good at it But I think some people due to natural lottery are given certain attributes which in turn gives them some advantages when cultivating their talents. An example i'm thinking of are singers. Singers who are gifted with better vocal chords than others could sing much better than those who don't have the same vocal chords. So in a way I think some people are born with a natural talent.
Delete"Meritocrats admit that market-based distribution of rewards is just only to the extent to which we can reduce endemic socioeconomic disadvantages and bring everyone to comparable starting points. But thereafter, they believe that we are the authors of our own destiny and whoever wins the race is morally deserving of the rewards they obtain from the market..." (Arora 88)
ReplyDeleteI agree that in order to have equal opportunity, it is important that everyone can start at the same "comparable starting point" and then it is up to them to grow from there. But is it really possible for this to ever happen? How can we ever start at the same place if some people already have access to lots of resources? Is there ever a chance that someone who is "born with a silver spoon in their mouth" will start at the same economic standing as someone who isn't? If so, how is this possible?
I agreed with your argument! I do not think that it is possible for everyone to start at the same "comparable starting point." Maybe people can get a really similar start, but it will not be an identical start. I believe people need to make the most of the resources that are available to them. From the day people are born, they have been surviving and living with what they have. People may never be given the same start as others.
Delete"Even if we somehow leveled socioeconomic disparities, the winners of the race would still be the fastest runners, due in part to a natural lottery. People are born with certain talents and attributes."
ReplyDelete- But is it fair to say that they aren't deserving of their success just because it's a natural gift? They found something they're good at and became successful with it, they put in effort to their accomplishments and I believe that most people deserve what they have.
I totally agree with you. I believe it is not fair to say people who have found their natural talent and took advantage of it do not deserve the success they receive because of it. If someone is naturally good at a certain sport and they work at it and become professional then they totally deserve that success. They had not control over the talents they were born with. It may seem unfair, but they got it so they deserve it. No one is equal in society and that happens purely by change. You are lucky if you attain good qualities and you should deserve them
Delete"Meritocrats admit that market-based distribution of rewards is just only to the extent to which we can reduce endemic socioeconomic disadvantages and bring everyone to comparable starting points."
ReplyDeleteI don't think bringing everyone to comparable starting points would greatly enhance our economical situation. It would be a somewhat boring world and everyone would be equal in every way. Of course we should all be equal but if we are all equal economically we wouldn't have much progress.
If we all started at the same starting points then what would we all work to become? We would be our motivation if we were all on the same levels?
"Instead Rawls speaks of the "Difference Principle" in dealing with the inequalities of the natural lottery. This principle, says Sandel, "permits income inequalities for the sake of incentives, provided the incentives are needed to improve the lot of the least advantage." (89)
ReplyDeleteDo you think we have a difference principle in our society? and if we do does it benefit society?
Yes, I think we definitely do have a difference principle. There are a lot of people who see the rich as a sort of inspiration or something they aspire to be or to have. Because of this, I think society does benefit. Those who strive to be like the people with more money or whatever is they are looking for, want to work harder and try to accomplish more in order to get what they want and this is very beneficial to a society.
DeleteOn page 90, a British philosopher, Isaiah Berlin states that people "are entitled to the benefits the rules of the game promise for the exercise of our talents." Sandel continues Berlin's statement explaining that once the rules are made, entitlements are turned into expectations (90). Do you agree with both ideas? Do you think people believe they are entitled to rewards based on their accomplishments or just for being in the right place, at the right time?
ReplyDeleteI think that is one of society's biggest issues. They expect things, and when that individual doesn't get what they expected they get disappointed. thats why its better to not have expectations, so if you receive something you see it like a blessing rather than a reward you were expecting to receive.
Delete"So anyone can, in theory, strive to compete and win. But in practice, people don't have real equality of opportunity due to various disadvantages, for example, of family income, social class, gender, race, caste, etc. So while the racetrack may look nice and shiny, the runners don't begin at the same starting point. What does it mean to say that the first to cross the finish line deserves his or her victory?"
ReplyDeleteAlthough we start at different points in the race, isn't the finish line subjective to the individual. We all have different goals, so does that mean that we reach the "finish line" when we reach our goal in life? Like our dream job or a stress free life?
Perhaps the quote is talking about people who aiming for the same goal like let say having a successful business. If the so called racers have an advantage as it describes then they would get to the finish line first, so wouldn't it be unfair? I get what you are trying to say though how each individual has a different goal in life, in this case, the individuals would be in different racetracks.
DeleteI believe the finish line is reaching our goal in life but it doesnt stop there. If someones goal is to own a business for example, once they have their business they cant just stop working. This person most likely would have a new goal of becoming a successful business. Its basically a never ending cycle of crossing the finish line.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Wait a minute, what about the role of the personal drive and effort we put into cultivating our talents? Don't we deserve the rewards that come from our striving? Not really, says Rawls. Countless factors beyond our choosing influence our ambition and effort, such as our upbringing, our family's work ethic, our childhood experiences, subconscious insecurities..." (Arora, 88)
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Rawls that we don't deserve what we put hard work and effort in to. If an individual works hard to get where they want, they do deserve it. plain and simple.
But when he starts talking about how it can depend on our upbringing, childhood experience, and so on. It hits home for me and I actually agree with him. I think there is a lot of factors like Rawls says that ends up pushing you to strive to get certain things out of life. You could have all the money in the world but if its all handed to you and you don't have to do anything to get it then most likely there will be nothing really motivating you to do better. But lets say that you come from a low income family and you see the struggle your parents have to go through to make sure there is food on the table, then the tables turn. You have motivation and drive to do better because you tell yourself that you don't want to have to live without stability.
Do you agree or disagree with Rawls claim? Or is it a little of both?
I don't agree with this at all. Unless someone was literally handed down their success, for example they didn't work for their money, house, cars, etc. then yes I can say , they were undeserving of that success. But in terms of opportunities, I disagree. If you came from a struggling, low income family and poor school vs a middle income, happy family and rich school, it shouldn't mean that one deserves success any more or less than the other. Yes one might have not been given the same opportunities/advantages as a successful person but that only means that the low income person was unfortunate. A successful person might have grown up in a more financially stable, happy family but they work to. They obviously put in effort to get to where they are so I believe they're deserving of whatever success they have. If a low income, troubled family is less successful, than I believe that that individual was just out of luck? Typically if you see two people with the same high grades, their chances of getting accepted to the same school are pretty high.
Delete"A kid from the poorest fifth of all households has a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percentile income bracket, while a kid from the richest fifth has a 22 percent chance."
ReplyDeleteEveryone should go through the experience of going from the bottom to the top. Would you consider it unfair to be born into wealth since they are basically given a huge head start? Wouldnt it be just as unfair if someone was more intelligent than the average person which would lead to wealth? Do these people deserve it more than everyone else?
I don't think that anyone is actually born intelligent, we aren't born knowing how to create computers and rockets. Maybe these individuals do certain things that make one smarter than others as they grow older. A person with a good education will most likely be smarter than someone who has never been to school in their lives. If studying, working hard, and putting a vast amount of time into ones education bring wealth, then I believe that they do deserve it.
Delete"I believe that much of my socioeconomic station in life was not realized by my own doing, but was accidental or due to my being in the right place at the right time."
ReplyDelete"My background greatly shaped my ambition and self-confidence and no doubt put me ahead of perhaps 96 percent of other Indians..."
He states that he thinks he was born into the top 20% of the population by saying he was "riding on eons of unearned privilege." He was able to obtain this advantage over society because his parents had achieved this before he was born. It is there doing that he is in this top percentile. I believe that this is the reward for parents working hard for their family. They want the best opportunity for their child so they strive for the top. It is not unearned success, it is rightful success due to your family. I don't think he should question his position in society, it was out of his control.
“A kid from the poorest fifth of all households has a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percentile income bracket while a kid from the richest fifth has a 22 percent chance.”
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Arora is trying to tell the people in the poorest fifth that they should not even try to achieve a goal that takes them to the top 5 percentile. He explains that statistics show that the chance of that ever happening is too slim. Do you think that people who are in the poorest fifth or any social class for that matter, should simply not try to become successful and aim for a higher social class? If people stop trying how do you think the economy will be affected? Do you think that striving for a higher social class is like a super-replicator in which people in higher social classes tell others in order to help the economy in a way?
Miguel, this is the same exact reaction I had when reading this part of the text. I felt he was telling that part of the population to not strive for better and to just accept their place in society. I think if people in fact listen to this, then the economy would decline. The goals people set for themselves and their families is what fuels this economy. Without a business person trying to promote a good or service, the people that might benefit from this would be left in the dark.
DeleteI honestly think that if people were to stop trying to climb up the social hierarchy, then our economy would fall because people would have less incentives to work hard everyday with that hope of becoming successful. To address specifically about the classes in general, imagine if everyone just decided to say, "Don't feel like working today, because I'll never be able to leave poverty" or something along those lines. If this is the case, then the economy would collapse due to fact that no one will try to climb up the ladder. However, the belief that one could climb up the social ladder into a higher social class is a somewhat of a super-replicator because not everyone will be able to reach that highest fifth of people that are really rich due to the fact that we need people to be at the bottom of the ladder in order to sustain our businesses and economy.
Delete"Since their natural gifts aren't their own doing, and are moreover profitable only in light of a the value a community places on them, they must share the rewards with the community" (Arora 88).
ReplyDeleteWhy should one give up the rewards he or she earns because the community gives one "value"? I believe that one should be able to do whatever they wish because this claim of being forced to give up something that one worked to achieve to someone who might not be as hard working.
You say one shouldn't be forced to give something they worked hard to achieve to someone who might not be as hardworking. This is agreeable yet there are many in our society who do work hard everyday and will still never reach the success that someone who may not have worked as hard but had better luck reach. It seems extremely selfish to take all you have received from life with no amount of gratefulness when the tables could easily be turned.
DeleteOne should not have to give up any of their rewards because society doesn't think it is as valuable. Yes some rewards are more valuable, but all contain some value. One may see happiness as more valuable than money and vice versa.
Delete