Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by jbooth » Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 8:50 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #50

jbooth wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 herita…

I've read a small portion as well.. bits regarding access to credit / finance / consumer banking are particularly salient, as are those regarding the state of inner city schools, and a whole bunch of other factors.

Citing "laziness" is really the easy way out -- clearly your job and my job are more "lazy" in some senses than being, say, a day laborer. So why can't the day laborer move up easily? A whole bunch of reasons, very few of which have to do with laziness. You can try to cite intellectual laziness if you want, but these guys didn't exactly get a chance to take AP calc senior year.

Regarding your ex, yeah, immigrant groups do have extremely high mobility and that's one of the great things about America is our (waning) receptiveness towards immigrants. But they're an extremely self-selecting group. That's not "average".

Regarding you and me (assuming you're a reasonably successful developer in some fashion), the major financial differentiator between us and our peers is the fact that tech work pays really well right now and doesn't necessitate a bunch of grad school debt. If I wasn't born on an automatic trajectory for college? And was the same guy in every other way? I'm at best a 50% shot at becoming a developer.. probably I'm working at Safeway instead. And doing a good job at that job, because I'm not lazy and that's my nature.

You can claim to be substantially more "fit" than me if you want.. and hey, maybe you are -- but if you're going to claim "gumption" as opposed to "born lucky" as the major reason you are where you are, then statistically, you're probably just underestimating the luck.

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

#52

Post by yummyfajitas » Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 11:11 PM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #51

yummyfajitas wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 herita…

I've read a small portion as well.. bits regarding access to credit / finance / consumer banking are particularly salient, as are those regarding the state of inner city schools, and a whole bunch of other factors. Citing "laziness" is really the easy way out -- clearly your job and my job are more "lazy" in some senses than being, say, a day laborer. So why can't the day laborer move up easily? A whole bunch of reas…

Citing "laziness" is really the easy way out -- clearly your job and my job are more "lazy" in some senses than being, say, a day laborer. So why can't the day laborer move up easily?

If you and I work full time, we both work harder than 90% of the poor. 80% of the poor spent less than 27 weeks working or searching for a job in 2008. Another 10% of them worked only part time for more than 27 weeks/year. Less than 10% of the poor either worked or searched for full time work for 50 weeks/year. (See my previous citation.)

But they're an extremely self-selecting group. That's not "average".

So basically, you are saying a group of people who are self-selected to be hardworking and show initiative [1] can break out of poverty? And they do this in spite of having low income, little access to credit/finance/consumer banking, a quality education, or even the ability to speak english?

That pretty much proves that low income, little access to consumer finance and lack of a quality education do not prevent a hardworking person from breaking out of poverty. This is evidence for my hypothesis, not yours.

[1] In some cases, they are simply self-selected to be fast runners, good at hiding, or other such non-marketable skills. See, e.g., Vietnamese, Somalian or Igbo refugees, all of whom exhibit greater income mobility than poor Americans.

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

#53

Post by jbooth » Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 1:08 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #52

jbooth wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read a small portion as well.. bits regarding access to credit / finance / consumer banking are particularly salient, as are those regarding the state of inner city schools, and a whole bunch of other factors. Citing "laziness" is really the easy way out -- clearly your job and my job are more "lazy" in some senses than being, say, a day laborer. So why can't the day laborer move up easily? A whole bunch of reas…

Citing "laziness" is really the easy way out -- clearly your job and my job are more "lazy" in some senses than being, say, a day laborer. So why can't the day laborer move up easily? If you and I work full time, we both work harder than 90% of the poor. 80% of the poor spent less than 27 weeks working or searching for a job in 2008. Another 10% of them worked only part time for more than 27 weeks/year. Less than 10%…

I wasn't saying they categorically prevent it -- I was saying they make it much less likely.

Let's go back to my safeway example. If I don't grow up in an environment where it's assumed I'm going to be college-track, I probably work at safeway. Working hard isn't all I need at that point -- my ceiling is "shift supervisor".

I'm a big fan of the outlier theory or the "2% theory" as I used to call it, 2% of people tend to make their own destiny, you put them anywhere and they'll become ambitious and try to do things. Most people don't, including most people who aren't in poverty. How many friends do you have who went to law school because, "I dunno, I'm not gonna work at Safeway the rest of my life?"