Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

sfreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#41

Post by isleyaardvark »

timwiseman wrote: post #26
gjm11 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your comment on the $250k proposal is wrong. The US has a population of, let's say, 300M. In any year, let's say 1/60 of that many -- 5M -- are just turning 18, which is when Bowles proposes handing out the money. (He's not proposing to give that much to everyone all at once.) So the annual cost is $250k times 5M, or about $1T. There's no $56T up-front cost. Now, $1T/year is an awful lot: it's about 1/4 of wh…

No, the idea is not stupid, but I think you are making some unfounded assumptions. it would completely obliterate poverty in the US. Not really, it would do little to help people in poverty already past 18 (unless they had children who were both just about to turn 18 and those children were generous...). Even for those that benefitted from this, to assume they would not go back to poverty you have to assume they will…

On the other hand, I bet a large percentage would spend it quickly and have relatively little to show for it at the end.

Professional football players make a ton of money, and guess how many end up filing for bankruptcy within 2 years of retirement: 78%.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1...

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#42

Post by anamax »

gjm11 wrote: post #23
isleyaardvark wrote: post #6

The article makes some interesting points but there seems to be a flawed use of statistics. Particularly the part about "the percentage likelihood that a bottom 10 percenter will ever make it to the top 10 percent. For 99 out of 100 people, rags never lead to riches." Well, what would you expect? There's going to be a pure mathematical limit to that sort of movement, nevermind issues of income mobility. To take an ab…

I think your comment on the $250k proposal is wrong. The US has a population of, let's say, 300M. In any year, let's say 1/60 of that many -- 5M -- are just turning 18, which is when Bowles proposes handing out the money. (He's not proposing to give that much to everyone all at once.) So the annual cost is $250k times 5M, or about $1T. There's no $56T up-front cost. Now, $1T/year is an awful lot: it's about 1/4 of wh…

> On the other hand, it would completely obliterate poverty in the US.

No, it wouldn't.

Most lottery winners end up bankrupt.

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#43

Post by apsec112 »

apsec112 wrote: post #8

Where is his proof ? He has this whole elaborate theory of economics and inequality worked out, and not once does he present any proof .

You can downvote me all you want, I stand by my statement. Theories about the world, if they are to be believed, require proof. This article is four thousand words long, there is more than enough space to provide some evidence if they felt like it.

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#44

Post by apsec112 »

llimllib wrote: post #9
apsec112 wrote: post #8

Where is his proof ? He has this whole elaborate theory of economics and inequality worked out, and not once does he present any proof .

I'm curious what form you expect that such a proof would take.

To name but one example (of dozens), a study showing that countries with higher Gini coefficients are more prone to rioting, strikes and civil disorder, after accounting for income (third-world countries are obviously more prone than first-world) would qualify as proof of at least one part of the theory.

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#45

Post by jbooth »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #32
jbooth wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure your plausible alternative explanation feels great to say to yourself, but that's just not how it works. If you're born in a poor family you have 10 million things going against you from day 1: quality of educational opportunity, access to credit or a buffer if you have a bad run of luck, spare capacity to actually try and get better at things because you're not trying to put dinner on the table constantly,…

Do you have evidence that my plausible alternative hypothesis is not how it works, or are you just guessing? In any case, I don't believe my alternate hypothesis is a complete explanation. All I'm doing is showing why Bowles' statistics don't prove his case at all. All they do is prove that whatever factor causes low income (which may well be hard work) is hereditary. Incidentally, one of your hypothesis is demonstra…

Yeah, there's a metric ton of research, saying that your alternative hypothesis is far from a complete picture of the story. Pick your field : psychology, sociology, economics -- there's stuff about poverty in every discipline.

There's also a lot of research out there about why you would prefer that line of reasoning you expressed, and would argue it in order to feel good about yourself.

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#46

Post by yummyfajitas »

jbooth wrote: post #45
yummyfajitas wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have evidence that my plausible alternative hypothesis is not how it works, or are you just guessing? In any case, I don't believe my alternate hypothesis is a complete explanation. All I'm doing is showing why Bowles' statistics don't prove his case at all. All they do is prove that whatever factor causes low income (which may well be hard work) is hereditary. Incidentally, one of your hypothesis is demonstra…

Yeah, there's a metric ton of research, saying that your alternative hypothesis is far from a complete picture of the story. Pick your field : psychology, sociology, economics -- there's stuff about poverty in every discipline. There's also a lot of research out there about why you would prefer that line of reasoning you expressed, and would argue it in order to feel good about yourself.

In spite of the "metric ton" of research, you have yet to cite any of it. Can you cite a single source showing that laziness is not a contributing factor to poverty?

Also, I never claimed it was a complete picture of what causes poverty. I claimed it was one possible cause of the correlation between parent and child poverty. This debunks Bowle's claim that a correlation between parent and child poverty implies hard work could not be a cause of poverty. It may or may not be, but his statistic proves absolutely nothing unless he can also show that laziness is not hereditary. Other things, e.g. bad luck, might also cause poverty, but would not be correlated between parent and child.

Incidentally, the same research about why I might prefer a "hard work" theory also shows why you would emotionally prefer a "it's not their fault" theory. My reasoning signals to my tribe that I'm hard working, and raises my status. Your reasoning signals you are caring, and raises your status. How clever, and probably true. (Except of course for the fact that I'm a member of your tribe and expressing my opinion lowers my status. But hey, I'm a sucker for statistics.)

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#47

Post by llimllib »

apsec112 wrote: post #44
llimllib wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what form you expect that such a proof would take.

To name but one example (of dozens), a study showing that countries with higher Gini coefficients are more prone to rioting, strikes and civil disorder, after accounting for income (third-world countries are obviously more prone than first-world) would qualify as proof of at least one part of the theory.

I agree with you 100% that the linked article sucks awfully.

Your proposed study, however, is so riddled with confounding factors that to call it a proof is nonsense. The man the article talks about does have lots of papers giving evidence for his views, and you should indeed read them if you're interested.

However, neither the study you propose nor any other study would constitute proof (of what? it's unclear what we're even discussing a proof of).

All I'm trying to say is, this is about human affairs, not physics, and we're not about to start finding proofs of human affairs.

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#48

Post by huherto »

gjm11 wrote: post #23
isleyaardvark wrote: post #6

The article makes some interesting points but there seems to be a flawed use of statistics. Particularly the part about "the percentage likelihood that a bottom 10 percenter will ever make it to the top 10 percent. For 99 out of 100 people, rags never lead to riches." Well, what would you expect? There's going to be a pure mathematical limit to that sort of movement, nevermind issues of income mobility. To take an ab…

I think your comment on the $250k proposal is wrong. The US has a population of, let's say, 300M. In any year, let's say 1/60 of that many -- 5M -- are just turning 18, which is when Bowles proposes handing out the money. (He's not proposing to give that much to everyone all at once.) So the annual cost is $250k times 5M, or about $1T. There's no $56T up-front cost. Now, $1T/year is an awful lot: it's about 1/4 of wh…

Just to entertain the idea. Let's say that if you want to go to college you get the money at 18. If you want to buy a house you get the money at 20. If you want to start a business; you get 100k at 22, and 150k at 26. To ensure that you are mature enough, and have a chance to fail(and learn) once.

I know that adding rules makes things more complicated and can have unintended consequences.

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#49

Post by jbooth »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #46
jbooth wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, there's a metric ton of research, saying that your alternative hypothesis is far from a complete picture of the story. Pick your field : psychology, sociology, economics -- there's stuff about poverty in every discipline. There's also a lot of research out there about why you would prefer that line of reasoning you expressed, and would argue it in order to feel good about yourself.

In spite of the "metric ton" of research, you have yet to cite any of it. Can you cite a single source showing that laziness is not a contributing factor to poverty? Also, I never claimed it was a complete picture of what causes poverty. I claimed it was one possible cause of the correlation between parent and child poverty. This debunks Bowle's claim that a correlation between parent and child poverty implies hard w…

As far as citing the research, I'm not an academic. There's literally tons, measured in paper. I'm not digging through it to prove points, I'll just say that while I'm sure that there are people who don't climb the financial ladder because they're lazy, it's about #10 on the list of factors that negatively impact income mobility. Give or take.

Regarding what feels good to say.. my reasoning signals an appreciation for all the advantages I've had, and an acknowledgement that I'm really not that special, I only had to be moderately smart and hard-working given the opportunities I've had. Take my deviation from the mean and put me in the ghetto, I'm not "climbing the ladder through free enterprise and hard work". You might be more special than me, I don't know.

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#50

Post by yummyfajitas »

jbooth wrote: post #49
yummyfajitas wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In spite of the "metric ton" of research, you have yet to cite any of it. Can you cite a single source showing that laziness is not a contributing factor to poverty? Also, I never claimed it was a complete picture of what causes poverty. I claimed it was one possible cause of the correlation between parent and child poverty. This debunks Bowle's claim that a correlation between parent and child poverty implies hard w…

As far as citing the research, I'm not an academic. There's literally tons, measured in paper. I'm not digging through it to prove points, I'll just say that while I'm sure that there are people who don't climb the financial ladder because they're lazy, it's about #10 on the list of factors that negatively impact income mobility. Give or take. Regarding what feels good to say.. my reasoning signals an appreciation fo…

There is tons of research, and I've read a small portion of it. As I suspected, you really don't even know what the research says, or if any of it disproves my point. You are just kind of hoping it does.

Hint: it doesn't. Most of it is inconclusive, and I've seen almost nothing proving hard work is not a significant factor. Regardless, my main point is that Bowle's statistic is consistent with laziness causing heritable poverty, which completely disproves his point.

As far as income mobility goes, I don't know of any research that can conclusively identify causative factors. We know whatever factors prevent mobility are heritable, location based and ethnicity based. We also they are not money/income based, since many low income immigrant groups have extremely high mobility. Vietnamese immigrants went from illiterate peasant to middle class Americans in one generation.

My first gf is a perfect illustration: in 10 years, she went from illiterate African refugee to Republican campaigner/fund raiser making more money than me (that might have changed in recent years). If she could do it, basically any American could do it.

Post reply on HN