Today, The New York Times’ David Brooks gave family dynasties a hearty endorsement in one of his increasingly deranged fireside chats, suggesting that since some “powerhouse families” regularly produce successful members, "we should be grateful that in each field of endeavor there are certain families that are breeding grounds for achievement. … I bet you can trace ways your grandparents helped shape your career," Brooks advises, proving once again he knows zero people who are not rich.
...
After all, if we acknowledge that sources of income—especially the choicest jobs on the market—are destined to be acquired through sheer luck, then it makes sense to put in place a failsafe for the unfortunate masses who are born to ordinary people. Universal healthcare, child benefits, heavily subsidized or free college education, and basic incomes are all sturdy and sensible programs that can ensure that all citizens, regardless of their parentage, will have a fair shot at enjoying their lives and their potential. We would all likely care a lot less about the special avenues to wealth available strictly to the parentally privileged if missing out on those juicy jobs didn’t mean losing health insurance, slipping into poverty, and finding oneself unable to afford a family of one’s own.
So I guess that, in the end, I’m with Williamson and Brooks: Nepotism is here to stay, and there’s no sense in fighting the partiality of parents for their children, especially when it comes to jobs. To respect the sanctity of those family relationships—and to save the conservative commentariat the horror of anti-nepotism policies—we need only to make sure no other person’s future is compromised, which means putting a strong system of wealth transfer programs in place. Thus, poor kids everywhere can rejoice: welfare is (rich) family-friendly after all!
