Well, while there's an element of truth in the assertions, it misses the most important elements!
One has to be underutilized potential, and huge disadvantage by being born in post code poverty traps, or in homes where no adult works, in a a nation as blessed and as well resourced as Australia!
And where our so called Leaders, worry about a tiny public debt level, while ignoring tens of trillions of private debt, particularly if you also include derivatives and rising record foreign debt!
And compound that problem, with asinine governments, selling the family farm, the family silver, and our economic sovereignty, all while locking up our most promising assets!
None of which ought to be down played or somehow justified, as being somehow normal, or just the way it is! Bah humbug sir!
This sort of (tea party) constipated thinking results in outcomes, where the man with the highest IQ in the nation, rises as far as a worker manning the rear end of a garbage truck, and we slip down the list of the most productive nation, to be now number seventeen!
Thinking within limited ridged circles, limits the questions, and so also the answers, and by implication, all the available solutions!
We simply can't continue to defend a system that simply prospers the most advantaged, while simply discarding the best and brightest.
We can talk about scholarships and all that, but if you or your vastly less able parents have to jump through hoops or cease following very seasonal work opportunities; much of these still very limited opportunities, when measured against actual need, condemn the disadvantaged, to more of the same, or worse!
Hence we wind up with our most able minds, on the back of garbage trucks etc!
And with all due respect sir, much less able minds, arguing for the status quo, or advantage!
Rhrosty.

Don,

This is a really good post. Thank you. I strongly agree with all you said. I have lots of thoughts on this, and here is a jumbled dump of a few of them.

1. From a world perspective the best we can do to lift the poorest people out of poverty and to reduce inequity is to encourage capitalism, lightly-regulated free-ish markets, free trade, multi-national corporations, and all those things that create wealth. It is these that spread the wealth from the wealthy countries to the poorer countries. So we shouldn’t belt up on Nike and other multi-national corporations that are employing people in cheap labour countries to make shoes and shirts for people in the wealthy countries. It’s all part of spreading the wealth and lifting them out of poverty. To see where the world is heading on lifting the poor out of poverty look back at how Japan has progressed since the second world war, South Korea since the 1950s, China, Indonesia, Thailand are progressing and lifting their people out of poverty.

2. We should be very pleased to have the very rich in our country. We shouldn’t abuse them and make them unwelcome so they leave and move to more welcoming regimes.

3. We need inequality in income and wealth. It gives people something to strive for. I believe we’ve gone too far raising taxes on the rich and on companies. I believe we need to reduce the progressive nature of our tax system. It’s become too progressive.

4. Even though it would hit me, as a self-funded retiree, I’d support raising the GST, reducing the inefficient state taxes, reducing company tax and the marginal tax rates for high income earners, reducing middle class welfare, allowing the states to get a share of income tax at a rate they each nominate and have to justify to their electors at state elections (as the Canadian provinces do). I’d support the states dumping their stamp duties and rates and changing to land taxes based on land value.

Exceeded my word limit :(

As a historian its always curious to see uncaring, unreconstructed economic and social views in a modern author.

The very simplicity of the author's 19th century thrift makes good beliefs defies the economic and humanitarian arguments of his intellectual betters.

Don Aitken's Fallacy on Discrimination & Inequity.

Facts available on the Dept of Tax / Stats and Parliamentary websites:

Bureau Stats: Average wage for 2013 was around $60,000 per annum.

Most recent available stats from Tax 2010 - 2011:

Individuals - Around 12.5 million = $660 billion revenue
Taxable income = $631 billion
Tax = $133 billion

Companies - Around 790,000 companies = $2,450 billion revenue
Company liabilities = $2,200 billion (That can't be right? Yes. It is!)
Tax = $62 billion

Vice Chancellors - Average annual income in Oz = above $700,000 per annum. Way 'over the top' even in comparison to international or Federal politicians.

Base salary for Federal politicians = $191,000 + electoral expenses = between 32,000 to 46,000 = gold card, free accommodation, 10% super on all entitlements. PM gets above + 165%. Etcetera. PM around $500,000

Perhaps it is wise to consider how a sole Mum on $30,000 per annum with three kids, (or a family with a disabled child), hope to survive if this fabricated budget crisis ever kicks in.

I am all for everyone carrying a fair share. I reckon Vice Chancellors should go down to around $400,000 per annum, they can contribute the rest to kids who are bright, but can't get into university because they can't afford to survive away from home. Politicians of all varieties should contribute 30% of their salaries to sole mums and families with disabled kids. Business should actually pay a fair percentage of tax - relative to individuals. I reckon that say around 10% of total gross revenue seems a good start to address the legal scam currently happening.

It is regrettable that academics seems to have forgotten what real life is like in the land of Oz these days. Don, your comments remind me of Durkheim's research on the pin factory ...

Poor old Ab Lincoln got it wrong. You can fool all of the people some of the time, and enough of the rest of them, for everyone else not to matter.

Dear Don,
You say "I like to avoid it if I can." I wish you had. Specious argumentation from one whom I admire for clear and independent thinking.

Don another great article. I don't expect such worldly sense from academics, more the arrogance of the educated dill, that we see in Plantagenet's bit of self promotion. You continually cause me to reevaluate my thinking.

I really am getting sick to death of the parade of leeches, making very good incomes off the backs of the poor, & their complaining articles on here. I wonder if any of them passed primary school math. Perhaps if they had they would better understand the facts of life. I believe history is a subject for the math challenged isn't it?

Rhrosty what utter bullsh1t, there is no other word for that crap.

I came from a pretty low socioeconomic background, we got our first car when I was 14, a 25 year old bomb but a car.

In a country town I achieved 3 honors at matriculation, was invited to attend Duntroon, but took up a GMH cadetship, including a fully funded engineering degree instead. We were given all the support & encouragement we could ask for at our 300 pupil high school, with only 12 students in 5Th year.

I might mention the most brilliant pupil at that school, & in the state that year, who could read Greek mythology during a math 2 honors course, & still flog the rest of us, ended up playing the Sydney town hall organ, & flogging CDs of that for a living. IQ has no bearing on desire.

It is attitude not background that may limit the success of some high IQ people, as it damn well aught. In fact some high IQ people are not fit to share the back of a garbage truck with their lower IQ betters. I would hate to have to share the back of a truck, or an office with someone with Plantagenet's attitude.

Keep them coming Don, you must be getting through to a few, & I enjoy the challenge you often present.