While I'm not naive to not see that life is inherently unequal, I completely disagree with you.
I know plenty people, including myself, who not only had the wrong zip code, they didn't even have a zip code. Somehow they made it. You can get lucky after you're born. And if you work hard, you can increase your luck odds.
Also, why zip code is the axiom here? I'd say having good parents is more significant than being born in the right zip code. Who's to say?
Nobody's to say. For some reason some people think that statistics dictate reality when obviously they just take an average. The zip code thingy is silly, but on average more expensive zip codes produce children with higher incomes.
Yeah because their parents are better educated and pass on their values to their kids. So what?
I am frankly tired of this modern idea that is is somehow unfair if parents pass on their advantages to their kids. That is what nature has always been about. It even starts before people have kids - they seek out partners that maximize the potential for their kids. So if a woman chooses an intelligent (or even just rich) man as a father for her kids, it is somehow unfair because it gives the kids an advantage. Even trying to become attractive (for example to become rich) to make you a good choice for parent is somehow unfair? It should be obvious that all that is some Marxist bullshit, where individuals are not allowed to operate for their personal advantage anymore, and their bodies are being utilized (women are not allowed to choose attractive partners anymore, or have children for their own enjoyment. Everybody has to be dedicated to the benefit of society or "fairness").
Stephen Curry's father was a professional basketball player, and now Curry is one of the best Basketball players. Is that unfair? What would have been fair, to disallow his father to play basketball with his son, and instead mandate he gives free basketball lessons to poor kids?
Maybe it is unfair that Curry's father didn't push for him to become a lawyer or a doctor, "forcing" him into a career as a basketball player. Well his dad knew about the world of basketball, so that is where he was able to help his son. Why shouldn't he do that? I personally will see to it that my kids learn to code, because that is where I am able to help. I don't feel bad about it at all. In fact I wish there were other things I were able to help with, but there are not. Still, they can go out into the world and seek other teachers. Especially with the internet, a lot of things are free to learn. There even is a Masterclass by Stephen Curry about learning to play Basketball.
parents passing on their experience isn't the only part. They also pass on their wealth, their connections, etc. The rich family can send their kids to the top schools. The rich family generally has connections. If your parents are house cleaners or gardeners or plumbers, can they loan you $100-200k to try out your pet startup idea? Can they introduce you to people that as likely to want to invest 5-7 figures in your idea? Are they even likely to know which topics to study or what opportunities exist?
The point is not that any of this is wrong. The point is to recognize all the benefits or luck or privilege or whatever you want to call it that one person might get that another does not and then add that to the sum of things it possibly takes to succeed.
Person A, has taxi drivers for parents, manages to go to a nice school, works hard, maybe has a chance at hitting it big
Person B has rich parents, is sent to the top schools where other top students challenge them, was idea, parents fund it, if not directly at least by knowing that they'll have a fallback should it fail, via top school connections or family connections they are given tutors, advisors, and or access to top talent for their startup, their chances of success are far higher.
Another example: Person A tells parents "I want to make an app". Parents say "that's nice". Person B tells parents "I want to make an app". Parents say "oh, I can introduce you to Ms.X, she designs apps, and Ms.Y, she had a successful startup, on and Mr.Z, he says his daughter just graduated CMU with a CS degree and she might be interested in joining you"
Again, nothing "wrong" with that . Just maybe it would be nice to fine ways to help Person A, not how to hinder Person B.
Success and wealth tend to compound intergenerationally. That can be a good thing. When societies have economic mobility, wealth tends to enter and leave families over a couple generations.
I love music from Drake, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Justin Bieber and the like. Their music and the fact we live in a society where stars are bred for music -- that's incredible. Fair/unfair isn't a very interesting binary. Natural variance and inequity is an important part of healthy competition. How much inequity is too much? That's a very interesting question.
Instead of fretting about people who became successful, we should think about how we can help more people become successful. Which incidentally seems to be a huge part of what PG does.
Even poor people today live better than kings in the past. The things we can afford, microwave dinners, washing machines, were only available to kings with lots of servants in the past. When you consider medicine, it becomes even more obvious that we are better off now than rich people in the past.
> ...we should think about how we can help more people become successful.
It's like you're purposefully missing the point.
What if most of serious wealth and success is decided at birth? What are the logical consequences of that?
Let's go extreme: A rich guy wins the lottery. He then tells everyone in town how they could've won if they bought tickets. What's your reaction?
> Even poor people today live better than kings in the past.
I generally agree with this on quantitative measures of productive or technological progress. Other quantitative measures don't look so great: education, housing and healthcare costs; health (esp. mental health) issues in developed vs developing nations; prison populations in the present vs past.
Michael Foucalt has better arguments to make here than I do [1].
The claim is not that all wealth and success is determined at birth, just that most of it is. This claim can't be disproven by counterexamples.
It's more productive to look at broader trends. The average Chinese factory worker works more hours than the average westerner, yet tends to end up less successful. The difference is that they had the bad luck to be born in a poorer country.
I know plenty people, including myself, who not only had the wrong zip code, they didn't even have a zip code. Somehow they made it. You can get lucky after you're born. And if you work hard, you can increase your luck odds.
Also, why zip code is the axiom here? I'd say having good parents is more significant than being born in the right zip code. Who's to say?