&gt; but given what we know about the importance of genetics in passing along favourable human capital characteristics<p>I don&#x27;t think we know that at all, and as an assumption it is a terrible one. If it is wrong (and we have no reason to assume it is correct, at least not to a very high degree), you are deciding to give up on a lot of people. You&#x27;re basically <i>guessing</i> that the poor are where they belong and as a consequence of that guess, you make no effort to help them. Moreover, even if that assumption is right, so what? Even if people are born less capable of riches, that does not mean we shouldn&#x27;t do our best to help them achieve moderate levels of success, or at least to better their lot in life. This isn&#x27;t all altruistic: a more egalitarian society is a more pleasant one.<p>In the end, it all comes to values. But I want to clarify what those values signify: financial success isn&#x27;t just about how much stuff you can buy, but more importantly about power[1]. The less money you have relative to the median, the less power, and the less power you have -- the less freedom. Giving up on power equality means giving up on greater freedom to great many people.<p>&gt; it seems very reasonable that we would see less than &quot;perfect&quot; mobility.<p>There&#x27;s a very long way from where the US is now to perfect mobility. Americans can start with striving for European levels of mobility for a start. We know that at least that is possible.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Power_(social_and_political)" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Power_(social_and_political)</a>