Hi Fred

"I see it as a real societal problem and attribute a good part of it to the imperfections of markets and a policy response which relies too much on passive welfare and not enough on active social intervention by governments"

Seems to me that a good part of the solution would be to recognize gifted students from any socio economic background and reward and nourish them ? When I was at primary school, I (along with many others) received a scholarship for secondary, and I know it sure helped. It was not one of those 'outstanding achievement' type scholarships, but more of a 'above a certain level' type. I know my self esteem skyrocketed just to know that I was a part of that group.

I'm not sure Fred, whether your reference to such things as "health and educational" issues is a bit of camoflage for a 'socialist' approach across the board, but if not, then I emphasise the need to do 2 things

1/ Reward evidence of achievement
2/ Focus on a communal value system which will lift all to their best irrespective of whether they are outstanding or not.

The cream does rise to the top. Lets turn it into butter with policy.

There is a term we use in Christian Missiology "Redemption and Lift" to describe the social outcomes of conversion. When people are restored to God through Christ, they will usually put aside many aspects of their lives which are debilitating. This frees up income for 'lift', and explains why a considerable number of Christians gravitate to higher socio economic status without particularly trying.

We can never make 'policy' which specifically promotes Christian conversion. But a close inspection of true Christian "values" would reveal that they are the foundation of what you are seeking to achieve though secular policy.

In a nutshell "New people not just new policies, make great societies, "

Policy without the attitude will be reduced to 'whats in it for me'.

Noone denies people start unequal. But at some stage, someone has to make a decision to become more equal and do something about it themselves - send their kids to school, help them be the first one to go to university or whatever. Punitive-sounding moralism grates n a debate where people struggle to avoid giving offence, but there is a measure of truth to the assertion that in the end, for the majority of those who are unequal, they are the only reliable and sustainable engines of their own progress.

But is it necessary for those efforts to be supported? Absolutely. Should it be through early government-sponsored intervention? Not necessarily. Maybe there are much better ways to offer help, other than government. Just because government can do something and can afford to pay for it doesn't make it right or sensible, given longer term issues of morality, sustainability and the impact on the surrounding culture (ask Noel Pearson).

Why do we always construe these debates in such narrow binary terms - it's either the market/self-help or government/state action. What about the family, what about civil society and the rich tradition of voluntary association for shared purposes (mutuals, nonprofit organisations that offer education, health, training/skills etc)?

Generally, governments are the last group we should expect to do this work. They are too clumsy and distant to be able to make the subtle and demanding judgements that can only be made by those close enough to the action to discern the judicious mix of compassion, discipline and practical support from which sustainable progress out of poverty and disadvantage is likely to emerge. Governments can have a crack and remediating some of the larger structural issues if they can, but beyond that, it's a different game.

Contrarion, why is it either civil society or government? Why not both? Governments have the means and can act as catalyst.

Agree Freddy

We ALL have a part to play. Otherwise just what the .... are we paying politicians for?

(Oh, yeah their retirement funds).

Trickle down theory doesn't work - unless you enjoy being urinated on.

Fact is human beings are social creatures, much of what we do to help each other is unpaid, unacknowledged work. There are those who are successful and put their energies into helping those less able or fortunate.

Then there are those who look down on others from their pinnacles of success. They believe that all their fortune was due to themselves. While hard work does play a part in our success, accident or illness can happen to anyone. In other words bad things can and do happen to good people; we have no right to consider ourselves civilised if we continue to walk on those we consider 'beneath' us.

“There is strong evidence that Australians of low socio-economic background face formidable barriers to upward income mobility.”

I wonder who skipped school and did not bother to hand in homework?

I wonder what some were doing when others of us were studying 18 hours a day, 7 days a week in our early 20’s to gain the professional credentials which now earn some of us 6 digit incomes?

I wonder who tries to work the black economy for a few ill gained dollars, rather than pay tax and sleep peacefully?

Reality is this, you cannot protect people from their own lethargy, laziness or absence of foresight.

Pretending you can is the height of arrogance. Better to lead by example and climb to the heights of ones own potential than wallow in the “safety net of socialism”.
Better to risk and live than wonder what might ahve been from a position of incentiveless indifference.

Reading this pap makes me think there is a huge future in super absorbent napkins. Something to wipe up the crocodile tears and faux compassion which oozes from every line of this leftie diatribe which would promote mediocrity in place of personal responsibility.

Oh on a positive note. keep up the great posts Leigh and Robert. Some sense is needed and you two are promoting it

Col - charming as always.

Using your 'logic' I guess that Brant and Todd should've just dug themselves out of the Beaconsfield Mine?

;-)

I have no problems with aspirational development. I too paid for my years at college. However, I also believe in lending a hand to those who need it. We can both be independent and still be humane.

Perhaps I have had enough things go wrong in my own life to understand that while hard work pays off - the unexpected can always happen no matter how careful you are.

I am concerned, Col, that you seem to blame people simply for being less successful than you. Why is that? You must have needed a shoulder to cry on at some point in your life.

Like R0bert, I work to live not live to work. Perhaps I would've felt differently if circumstances had enabled me to follow my chosen profession. So I work on a contract basis - while the work is boring I am free to pursue my many interests which include volunteer work. I accept that I have a lower income as a result and I resent being sneered at by someone clearly wealthier than I simply because I care about the welfare of others.

Not everyone is as assertive and powerful as you Col, however, we all have a contribution to make.