You assume the game is perfectly fair to begin with, but that begs the question of what "fair" exactly is. Why is it that you assume you're on the other side of the proposition? Is it impossible to entertain the idea that people of your class might make more money or have more advantages from collectivist policies? That it is not the people beneath you cheating you, but the people above? What is wrong with desiring a system where, for equal effort, people can have equally proportional upward mobility? Why lump layabouts in with deserving, hard working people? If we consider the bell curve of hard workers, I'd say far more than the mean are being undervalued, and we should not disadvantage them to spite the layabouts at the tail.
i like this, although it's natural everyone should try and twist the rules in a way that benefits them. What may benefit them is a less obvious part of the equation.
I think it's fair to say that we don't want people to change the game just because they're winning, so they can win more, and they know exactly what will benefit them. Wonder if Dodd Frank will make it past the week...
I sure don't like seeing people trying to change the game for the worst because they are losing. An ugly side of democracy, all those programs aimed to voters who expect the elected government to steal and handicap on their behalf, hoping it will be for their benefit (which is not necessarily the case).
You provoked this dispute between us and now you're refusing to talk. Great job, man, you can be proud of yourself.
Of course, we want to make sure we are doing the right thing, at which point we have to fall on statistics as well as data. Since you seem coyly neutral, how would you address a growing population where the growth of automation and globalization may exceed the pace of retraining the workforce? Where labor demand drops to levels where a market wage is incompatible with the cost of living?