Perhaps, if humans are mostly fungible commodities that respond uniformly to inputs. And RIP if you dare suggest the inverse: subsidizing the reproduction of high achievers.

What does "subsidizing reproduction" entail, exactly?

Aside from the nasty eugenics overtones of this concept, it's flawed from the perspective of how warped the reward system of America's brand of capitalism is. All of our forms of measuring merit are deeply distorted. We pour advantages upon those who have already benefited from previous advantage and then congratulate ourselves for our foresight in identifying how deserving they are when they continue to flourish. The result is a lot of mediocrity elevated and "unrecognized" talent squandered. Scare quotes, because the interlocking circles of privilege and protectionism are how our system is designed to work. We are a deeply elitist society mascarading as a humble, objective meritocracy. No one with advantages actually wants fair competition.

Fuck off Nazi

>subsidizing the reproduction of high achievers.

[Western] Capitalism does this by concentrating wealth with higher "achievers".

It kind of doesn't given lower fertility rates of wealthier people. Which is fine with me, since I'm not a eugenics person like the other poster.

Doesn't that mean that the reproduction is "subsidised" more:

If you're wealthy but less fecund you have more wealth to support each child than someone who is either more fecund or less wealthy.