Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
I think the emerging discussion regarding income and privilege is quite interesting. In the modern economy, your intelligence is what marks you more than anything as someone you will earn high wages. The symbolic analysis required of many high wage jobs can only be done by people with the requisite IQs. Now, as intelligence is probably 40-80% inherited, and is only slightly boosted by social environment (household, education), and is probably slightly boosted by other factors (hard work, ambition, aggression), it could be argued that you can't really justify your income solely on the basis of merit, but more-so on the basis of luck. Simple, evolutionary luck. So probably an argument for marginally progressive taxation.
|
Interesting argument. I was about to write that 'privileged' was the wrong term to use. I think 'privileged' implies a status or standard that you did not necessarily 'earn' through your own doing - so a person who earned a higher than average wage through education and hard work should not be considered privileged. The privileged was Psychnet's example of the trust fund. Like Justin Trudeau kind of privileged.
So maybe your definition is right, not instead, but as well.