I think it's incoherent to begin arguments on the basis of who had more advantages (not to deny that some have more advantages, I use the term priviledge at times, but I mean it narrowly (like just economically for instance). To figure this out in all realms would take omniscience! That a life of abject poverty is unlikely to be one with many advantages, yes we can go that far). It's as incoherent as thinking the marketplace is some grand reward machine perfectly metering out justice. Is that really a very scientific or economic view of the marketplace? (even a perfect marketplace which of course we dont' have). Figuring out whether wealth in general, in the abstract, was somehow deserved or not on some basis of justice just breaks down into incoherence. We've heard of laudable rich people, we've heard of scumbag rich people, we've heard of meh rich people, and anyway wealth only rewards a very narrow realm of human virtue even in the ocassional cases that the two coincide anyway!

It is best to argue for a welfare state on the basis of it benefitting many people (and generally the vast working majority), on the basis of even the poorest deserving to have *something* (in many realms) in this life (well why don't they?), on the basis of benefitting the larger society, on the basis of those who truly are downtrodden, on the basis of values beyond just the work ethic, on the basis if you are radical of all the deliberate advantages (and not some murky non-levelness) the rich have (we bailed the bankster rich, didn't we?), in some cases on the basis of all other retirement schemes failing (for the most part they probably will for most). Not on the phantom chasing of perfect justice somehow acheived by the welfare state OR the marketplace. That you will never have.