I don't see how a system where one kid can have so many privileges and opportunities against another kid simply based on the family they were born in as just and rational.
Your entire notion that everybody should be equal is not rational.
People
are not equal, and they will never be, no matter how much you wish for it. I'm not talking about money. I'm talking about ability, about attitude. And yes, it's not their fault, but their parents'. But the issue is not about having more money, it's about caring.
You object that some people grow up with parents that have more money, and you make the allegation that the poor kids don't have a chance because they are poor and will always be poor because they're poor, and it's all the fault of the kids who have parents with more money.
At no point do you consider that people from families with money still earn their lives.
At no point do you consider the very real possibility that the "underprivilegued" kids are not in any way as able as the others. The typical proletarian gives a shit about whether his kid fares well in school, and of course the overwhelming majority of them which isn't accidentially gifted in a magical way like Mozart
doesn't fare well. Because, surprise, unless you are the kinda one in a billion chance superhuman, you do not simply know everything and learn everything from nowhere. It takes care and feeding.
It's even more pronounced in "people with migration background" as they're nowadays called (used to be you called them just "foreigners"). Although admittedly, it is slowly getting better. Two decades ago, it was "normal" that these kids didn't understand a word. Because, you guess it, their parents still didn't care to learn the local language after living in that place for 10-15 years (and some don't care after 35 years either). Those people still exist, of course, but at least there are meanwhile
some others, too. Silverline at the horizon, if you will.
So, how do you expect a child that doesn't understand a word in school to graduate? How do you expect that child to become anything but either a social parasite, or a criminal? It's not like they have much of a choice, do they. And no, it's not because of money. It's because of "I give a fuck".
This is not just "some idea" of mine, by the way. It's what I've seen myself when teaching first aid at a junior high, and it's what one of the teachers told me "off the record" there: Some kids you just can't help.
That was on a day when we went to a gambling den to find a boy who couldn't be bothered to go to school because, you know,
skool sux. I'm not sure how he got into that place because it's totally illegal for a 12 year old to be there, or for the owner to let him in. But apparently, that's not a problem in a constitutional democracy, the law is rather a guideline than something that's binding. At least as long as neither the owner of that location nor the parents of the kid give a shit.
Try and figure the trouble that I would have faced if my parents had ever caught me skipping school and going to a gambling den. That's unimaginable. And here, there you have the difference between the kids that get a privilegued job and those that don't. It's not money. It's parental care.
On the other hand side, people who don't have wealthy parents and who deliver
a mere minimum very easily get very big privilegues here. I had to pay for my university studies myself, and I worked during all that time to earn my life and pay my studies. Not because we were poor, but because I was not elegible for governmental founding, and my father thought it was necessary for a young man to learn the value of money and how hard it can be to earn a living. I've done everything, got my hands real dirty, at the construction site, as care worker, and later as nurse. So don't you tell me about being privilegued. That being said, no, it wasn't a bad time, and in hindsight I believe my father made a wise decision back then.
Several from my highschool took up Bafög after graduating, which is a kind of governmental sponsorship. The basic qualification was, you had to be admitted to university (not really hard!), and your parents had to earn less than so-and-so much per month -- which ruled me out (that's regardless of whether your parents actually pay for you or not, by the way -- if they don't, then you are just unlucky).
The precise rules about what you get and what you have to pay back have changed about a dozen times during the years, and I don't know what they are now. But back then, you would get a generous monthly pay which was easily sufficient to live without needing to work, for up to one year longer than the regular study time. Longer than that if you had a good excuse. This was officially a "loan", but you did not have to pay any interest, and you only had to pay back 50% of the loan 10 years after leaving university. Which, in summary, means of course you were basically given around 100k for free.
You guess right, my comrades laughed at me because I, the stupid fool, had to work for my living, and nobody gave me the equivalent of a small apartment just like this. Fuck me, the capitalist pig.
asking for numbers/data while giving improbable excuses to a common scenario.
Hahaha yes, that's typical :)
If you want "numbers", just take a day off from work and go to the next social assistance office. Just look how many people have no trouble sitting there in the morning when you'd think they should be at work. You will be surprised how many people have that time -- after all,
you had to take a day off to see them!
Go to a social housing site (but leave your wristwatch and your cell phone at home) and just have a careful look. You don't get the impression that it's poor people who live here. Not from the size of their plasma TVs anyway, or from their washing machine or kitchen machine brands. Heck, half of them have a bigger TV than I have.
I could tell you of a tenant (not in a social housing, but living from welfare anyway). One of those people who complain that they only get 364 euros per month which isn't enough for living. Except that's not for
living but for cinema, cigarettes, and drugs. For living, they get extra, and the welfare office pays the rent, the TV, and the refridgerator. And, of course, the washing machine.
Because yeah, they're valuable human beings, and they must have the same privilegues as someone who is working.
So this guy orders his washing machine. He wants a Miele (well... of course, only the best), which costs over 800€. The guy at the social care office gives him a Bauknecht for under 300€. Incidentially, I see him on his way home (...let's say
from the grocer, although something else is more likely) the day the machine is delivered, and he tells me: "Look, these fuckers will see how long this machine will last", he picks up a couple of cobblestones, and "washes" them. I can't believe what I see. Machine is broken after this special treatment, of course (you're not surprised, are you).
So he laughs and tells me "See, if they had bought the Miele right away, it would have been cheaper", and off he goes to the social care office again. I'm angry, quite obviously (since it's my tax money that is being burned) and call the social care office.
Social worker tells me: "Uh huh, well, do you have any evidence he did that on purpose? Uh huh, he told you, you watched him do it. Aright. Did anyone else see it, I mean, do you have a witness?". -- I'm stumped. The machine is not just somehow broken, it's
anihilated, there are scratches from heavy rocks on the metal and rock splinters all over. And that fucking socialist tells me "Oh well, without evidence, you know, or a witness, I guess there's not much we can do". End of story, they bought him a Miele.
Dude, really, we totally need to give that type of human more money. It's so rewarding, and it surely turns them into better humans.