We've all heard the classic argument for minimal taxation and redistribution of wealth: "In a university course, would you take from the grades of the most successful and give it to the least?". This argument neglects the fact that life is not a university course, and talent and hard work are not the only determinants of success.
Gladwell brilliantly shows the role of luck and opportunity in determining success. From top Canadian hockey players mostly being born in the first months of the year (being more developed allows them to have special attention and more practice opportunities), to Bill Gates having access to an exceptional computer lab from an early age.
This shows that opportunity determines success, even though talent and ability are requisites. Therefore, Elon Musk is not the richest man in the world because he is the most talented, hard-working person. He is an exceptionally talented and hard-working person who was born into the right family and was in the right place at the right time. Therefore, incomes are not grades on a course, if you rolled a dice to determine a part of your grade, that'd be more like it.
The conclusion I reached from Outliers was that equality of opportunity is crucial, such as equal access to quality education. However, even then not all discrepancies in income are a result of hard work, therefore, taxation and redistribution are justified. We should think more about luck and opportunity when we're doing taxes.
Comments