It seems to me that the policy implications of behavioral genetics are more in favor of redistribution. If anyone could work hard and develop the cognitive ability to succeed in a remunerative career, the incentive effects would be in favor of less redistribution. But if cognitive ability is largely genetically determined and therefore unearned, fairness would seem to suggest more redistribution from genetic lottery winners to losers. As someone who is generally on the winning side of the lottery and disposed against redistribution, I really struggle with this.
I’ve always thought that the best argument for redistribution is that it moderates the effect of luck. I can’t think of anything that is more luck-based than what genetics a person ends up with (from the perspective of that person, not their parents). There literally can’t be anything more out of their control, and it enormously influences so many outcomes. But apparently, that’s not the argument that wins for redistribution in US policy circles, probably because we prefer to say that we’re going to help someone overcome some past problem, then they will be good to handle the rest on their own.
If genetics or IQ explain some significant portion of success, isn't that even more of a reason to provide more to those with lower life success?, If you are born without either the internal or external traits to compete effectively in our economy, don't you deserve some minimum amount of help? We are a wealthy enough society to help the marginalized. I believe we are wealthy enough and dynamic enough to do so without ruining our economy.
While I agree that genetic explanations for income disparity would suggest scaling back on educational expenditures, some of you other statements are a little confusing. The primary justification for redistribution is that wealth and poverty is driven by luck. A lot of hard working people don’t get rich, so the “incentives” explanation falls short. Therefore it’s only fair to share the wealth. If winning/losing the genetic lottery turns out to explain remaining disparities in wealth, then it is all luck.
It seems to me that the policy implications of behavioral genetics are more in favor of redistribution. If anyone could work hard and develop the cognitive ability to succeed in a remunerative career, the incentive effects would be in favor of less redistribution. But if cognitive ability is largely genetically determined and therefore unearned, fairness would seem to suggest more redistribution from genetic lottery winners to losers. As someone who is generally on the winning side of the lottery and disposed against redistribution, I really struggle with this.
I’ve always thought that the best argument for redistribution is that it moderates the effect of luck. I can’t think of anything that is more luck-based than what genetics a person ends up with (from the perspective of that person, not their parents). There literally can’t be anything more out of their control, and it enormously influences so many outcomes. But apparently, that’s not the argument that wins for redistribution in US policy circles, probably because we prefer to say that we’re going to help someone overcome some past problem, then they will be good to handle the rest on their own.
If genetics or IQ explain some significant portion of success, isn't that even more of a reason to provide more to those with lower life success?, If you are born without either the internal or external traits to compete effectively in our economy, don't you deserve some minimum amount of help? We are a wealthy enough society to help the marginalized. I believe we are wealthy enough and dynamic enough to do so without ruining our economy.
I realize this was written more than ten years ago and I shouldn't nitpick about mixed metaphors,
but nobody undermines a cow, sacred or secular. Let's slaughter those cows, sizzle their steaks and grind them into sausages!
Mmmm, BBQ.
While I agree that genetic explanations for income disparity would suggest scaling back on educational expenditures, some of you other statements are a little confusing. The primary justification for redistribution is that wealth and poverty is driven by luck. A lot of hard working people don’t get rich, so the “incentives” explanation falls short. Therefore it’s only fair to share the wealth. If winning/losing the genetic lottery turns out to explain remaining disparities in wealth, then it is all luck.