Variance in human ability is smaller than variance in income. Productivity does not explain income in capitalist economies. Instead, most of the changes in income are explained by differences in hierarchy. You might say that more able individuals are more likely to be higher up in the hierarchy, but being higher up doesn't require an increase in ability proportional with the increase in income. You only need to be 1% better than the next guy to win the competition, leading small differences in ability to result in large differences in income.
Using genetics to explain the fairness of capitalism is a pretty common lie we tell ourselves to make us feel superior over poor people.
The majority of income differences comes from your skill. A doctor earn much more than a cashier due to having a more valuable skill, and that span makes up the bulk of gini coefficient.
Ultra wealth can't be explained with skill difference, no, but that isn't very relevant to this discussion. You can get a ton of money just through skill alone, doctors, programmers, lawyers etc aren't poor by any stretch.
I think that oversimplifies things. Even a very skilled teacher or therapist is unlikely to make as much as an average skilled doctor, programmer, or (maybe?) lawyer.
> The majority of income differences comes from your skill. A doctor earn much more than a cashier due to having a more valuable skill, and that span makes up the bulk of gini coefficient.
Training certainly big plays a role, but the majority of a doctor's income, at least in the United States, comes from the fact that they're part of a labor cartel which artificially limits the number of doctors. No such cartel exists for cashiers.
It's why even a mediocre doctor in the United States can make significantly more there than anywhere else in the world despite receiving equivalent training.
> It's why even a mediocre doctor in the United States can make significantly more there than anywhere else in the world despite receiving equivalent training.
A mediocre developer or hairdresser in the United States also makes significantly more there than anywhere else in the world despite receiving equivalent training. That doesn't require any labor cartel.
> Using genetics to explain the fairness of capitalism
No one was doing this. I was pointing out the unfairness of capitalism. The idea that some people are genetically or developmentally less predisposed to skills that will give them a comfortable income is an argument for the unfairness of capitalism, because I haven't heard a convincing argument that this predisposition makes them less deserving of a comfortable life.
If anything the flip-side of this (arguing that humans are pretty close in ability and variations in earning are more about circumstance) is really more aligned with the pro-capitalist narrative that everyone has opportunity, and lack of success is usually due to not seizing it.
