Richard_III

I think the fundamental mistake that he makes is that he mistakes lowering a disadvantages child's comparative advantage with actually disadvantaging them. His argument is that certain parental behaviors, including reading bedtime stories, give those parents children a developmental advantage, and that because not all parents behave in this way there will be an inequality of outcomes where some children have a greater developmental boost simply because of their parent's actions.Where he makes a crucial error is in claiming that these beneficial behaviors disadvantage children who do not get them. That is not true, they advantage the children that get them, and this widens the gap between the children, but it does not harm the worse off children. Obviously a child that is loved and nurtured will have an unfair advantage over a child who is abused and neglected, but the fault does not lie with the good parent but with the bad parent. All parents have an obligation to provide for their children and if they fail to do so then the blame lies with them, not with the parent that performs their duty. All of his arguments involving class fall prey to the same error. A rich kid going to a elite school or inheriting money does not make a poor kid more ignorant or more poor. Yes it is unfair that the rich kid gets those advantages, but it would also be unfair if that rich kid was born stupid while the poor kid was born smart. The key here is that life is not always a zero sum game. One person's success does not necessarily hurt you. If you and your buddy are working at an office and they get promoted, you are worse off than they are, but that is because they got promoted not because you got demoted. And if y'all stay friends it will most likely be beneficial for you in the long run.