Hawke wrote:



Most people have enough of all of those to succeed.

But 98% of them don't. That the fact.
"Fact"
In the immortal words of "Inigo Montoya"
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means. "

You made up a number and call it a fact? 9Your SOP) or do you actually
have an actual source?
..
So what are all those people
lacking? A fair system?


No one "deserves" any particular level of success, Hawke-Ptooey. All
anyone deserves, and our system definitely provides it, is the right to
do the best they can with what they have. If someone brought up by a
single mom working a low-wage job busts his hump in school but only can
get into a ****ty school like CSU Chico and then gets a $60,000 a year
job as an accountant for Kaiser, that's fair; and if someone else
breezes through school and gets good enough grades and SAT to get into
Stanford and then gets a $150K job right out of the gate, that's fair,
too. Switch the outcomes of the two people if you like - it's still fair.

I have no problem with that scenario. I think that is fair. Both worked
and achieved a measure of success. The difference between the two isn't
all that much. I'd say a fair amount due to unequal ability. It's not
that they don't make the same. It's the degree to which they are paid
unequally. This is not out of line. 18 million for the CEO of Macy's
compared to his workers is not fair. See, it's the degree not the fact
pay is not equal.


Ok so EXACTLY where is the dividing line then,
between fair and unfair differentials?

jk