> Assuming the increasing opportunity people are doing it to feel superior is likely false, and also likely just a way to feel superior to them.
You are right about that, maybe it's not about feeling superior, I don't know the real motivation. My argument would probably be stronger without this remark.
But I don't know if the differentiation between "outcomes" and "opportunities" really makes a difference. People still vote for "opportunities" that are only meaningful for people richer than themselves.
For example, you could say that lowering taxes on dividends is providing an "opportunity", but it's only an opportunity for those who already have more money than they need, and it rewards people proportionally with how much money they already have.
With many opportunities the outcomes are rather predictable, so I'm not sure what the difference is between focussing on "opportunity" vs. "outcomes".
> lowering taxes on dividends is providing an "opportunity", but it's only an opportunity for those who already have more money than they need
I don't think this is that simple. Only considering billionaires, when most businesses fail in 3 years and owners can often get paid very little for a long time, is far, far too reductive in my opinion.
You are right about that, maybe it's not about feeling superior, I don't know the real motivation. My argument would probably be stronger without this remark.
But I don't know if the differentiation between "outcomes" and "opportunities" really makes a difference. People still vote for "opportunities" that are only meaningful for people richer than themselves.
For example, you could say that lowering taxes on dividends is providing an "opportunity", but it's only an opportunity for those who already have more money than they need, and it rewards people proportionally with how much money they already have.
With many opportunities the outcomes are rather predictable, so I'm not sure what the difference is between focussing on "opportunity" vs. "outcomes".