Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#21

Post by sul_tasto » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 12:39 PM UTC

solatic wrote: post #9

padolsey wrote: post #2

These conclusions seem to spit in the face of "meritocracy". It's always puzzled me that this idea of meritocracy, especially in tech (notably USA), is so pervasive, bleeding into our corporate performance reviews and our pro-diversity efforts ("we hire only according to merit" ). But it is so internally irrational. I'm reminded of this argument: > The case against meritocracy can be put psychologically: (a) The abol…

Unequal distribution of rewards (i.e. according to merit) is fine and desirable (as a motivating force). The problem's roots are when the distribution of rewards becomes hereditary , that the children of the wealthy have near-guaranteed access to the best educational and social institutions, have near-guaranteed access to startup capital (i.e. from their parents), are usually provided with necessities (food, housing,…

Are you suggesting that we separate children from their parents?

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#22

Post by padolsey » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 12:39 PM UTC

solatic wrote: post #9

padolsey wrote: post #2

These conclusions seem to spit in the face of "meritocracy". It's always puzzled me that this idea of meritocracy, especially in tech (notably USA), is so pervasive, bleeding into our corporate performance reviews and our pro-diversity efforts ("we hire only according to merit" ). But it is so internally irrational. I'm reminded of this argument: > The case against meritocracy can be put psychologically: (a) The abol…

Unequal distribution of rewards (i.e. according to merit) is fine and desirable (as a motivating force). The problem's roots are when the distribution of rewards becomes hereditary , that the children of the wealthy have near-guaranteed access to the best educational and social institutions, have near-guaranteed access to startup capital (i.e. from their parents), are usually provided with necessities (food, housing,…

Agreed -- it is certainly inheritance that mostly takes the blame here, since it allows massive advantages to accrue, unchecked. However, I do think that there's something to be said against even inner-lifetime accruement of obscene wealth, as that can warp merit as well. Where's the sweet spot? - the level at which there are sufficient rewards required to motivate the gathering of wealth without the risk of accruing such an advantage that would unbalance the playing board.

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#23

Post by postingpals » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 12:40 PM UTC

solatic wrote: post #9

padolsey wrote: post #2

These conclusions seem to spit in the face of "meritocracy". It's always puzzled me that this idea of meritocracy, especially in tech (notably USA), is so pervasive, bleeding into our corporate performance reviews and our pro-diversity efforts ("we hire only according to merit" ). But it is so internally irrational. I'm reminded of this argument: > The case against meritocracy can be put psychologically: (a) The abol…

Unequal distribution of rewards (i.e. according to merit) is fine and desirable (as a motivating force). The problem's roots are when the distribution of rewards becomes hereditary , that the children of the wealthy have near-guaranteed access to the best educational and social institutions, have near-guaranteed access to startup capital (i.e. from their parents), are usually provided with necessities (food, housing,…

> It is the hereditary nature of wealth which is the largest contributor to long-term inequality.

Hereditary wealth is a specific form of rent-seeking which is something liberal economics has no explanation for. It's like one of those things that never left the feudal era whilst everything else did. But I wonder why some who follow this type of economics think this is the sole and most important issue? There are many examples of rent-seeking and this is far from the biggest contributor towards inequality.

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#24

Post by orange_tee » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 12:41 PM UTC

padolsey wrote: post #2

These conclusions seem to spit in the face of "meritocracy". It's always puzzled me that this idea of meritocracy, especially in tech (notably USA), is so pervasive, bleeding into our corporate performance reviews and our pro-diversity efforts ("we hire only according to merit" ). But it is so internally irrational. I'm reminded of this argument: > The case against meritocracy can be put psychologically: (a) The abol…

You are so focused on economic inequality that you ignore the greater picture: there will still be a hierarchy. There will still be humans dominating other humans and asserting themselves above them. Maybe in the far future humans will create a social technology to live in true equality but in the immediate future this is clearly not happening.

As long as there is a hierarchy, you cannot really have equality, sorry. You make humans more economically equal and you create an even worse situation where human hierarchy is based on family name, connections, genetics or just plain violence and social mobility would be even worse than it is now, where it is dictated by income and wealth.

Also your definition of meritocracy is contentious. For example you are saying, it is not meritocratic that a boy does not achieve his maximum potential because his parents could not afford to give him the best opportunities. But what if instead of comparing just one generation, we compare two or three? What if we compare their grandparents and their parents? Maybe the grandparents of the poor boy were better off but for whatever reason the wealth did not tickle down in sufficient quantities. Whereas maybe a boy who is richer today had poorer grandparents who worked really hard to make sure their grandchildren had the best opportunities. That looks like meritocracy to me.

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#25

Post by buran77 » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 12:41 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #8

padolsey wrote: post #2

These conclusions seem to spit in the face of "meritocracy". It's always puzzled me that this idea of meritocracy, especially in tech (notably USA), is so pervasive, bleeding into our corporate performance reviews and our pro-diversity efforts ("we hire only according to merit" ). But it is so internally irrational. I'm reminded of this argument: > The case against meritocracy can be put psychologically: (a) The abol…

"These conclusions seem to spit in the face of "meritocracy". It's always puzzled me that this idea of meritocracy, especially in tech (notably USA)" "Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh" - are you suggesting the situation in rural Bangladesh is applicable to Silicon Valley?

Why wouldn't it? In the end this is a people problem, not a tech problem. And both Silicon Valley and Bangladesh have some form of "local" meritocracy. Meritocracy applied and working within your stratum but not across the boundaries.

Whether you're poor or in a lower caste you still get some form of meritocracy within your group to keep you content and motivated. But crossing the boundary to the next level, while not impossible, is designed to be highly unlikely because people in all layers like the security those boundaries provide them.

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#26

Post by padolsey » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 12:41 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #8

padolsey wrote: post #2

These conclusions seem to spit in the face of "meritocracy". It's always puzzled me that this idea of meritocracy, especially in tech (notably USA), is so pervasive, bleeding into our corporate performance reviews and our pro-diversity efforts ("we hire only according to merit" ). But it is so internally irrational. I'm reminded of this argument: > The case against meritocracy can be put psychologically: (a) The abol…

"These conclusions seem to spit in the face of "meritocracy". It's always puzzled me that this idea of meritocracy, especially in tech (notably USA)" "Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh" - are you suggesting the situation in rural Bangladesh is applicable to Silicon Valley?

Surely the human factors at play are not incomparable.. ?

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#27

Post by sanxiyn » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 12:41 PM UTC

AsyncAwait wrote: post #16

padolsey wrote: post #2

These conclusions seem to spit in the face of "meritocracy". It's always puzzled me that this idea of meritocracy, especially in tech (notably USA), is so pervasive, bleeding into our corporate performance reviews and our pro-diversity efforts ("we hire only according to merit" ). But it is so internally irrational. I'm reminded of this argument: > The case against meritocracy can be put psychologically: (a) The abol…

I suspect many who believe in meritocracy are already successful people who like to tell themselves they got there by merely being so much smarter than everyone else around them, dismissing the access, luck, (i.e. quality of schools they were born near), family wealth etc. almost entirely as a factor.

I am not sure how getting there by being smarter is any better. It's not like anyone spent any effort to be smart, it's just genetic lottery.

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#28

Post by danieltillett » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 12:42 PM UTC

padolsey wrote: post #2

These conclusions seem to spit in the face of "meritocracy". It's always puzzled me that this idea of meritocracy, especially in tech (notably USA), is so pervasive, bleeding into our corporate performance reviews and our pro-diversity efforts ("we hire only according to merit" ). But it is so internally irrational. I'm reminded of this argument: > The case against meritocracy can be put psychologically: (a) The abol…

That is not what meritocracy is - it is rule by the cognitive gifted.

The argument for meritocracy is that meritocratic societies (and by extension businesses) kick the butts of all others. It might not be fair, but it works better than all the other alternatives.

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#29

Post by nvarsj » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 12:42 PM UTC

sul_tasto wrote: post #14

padolsey wrote: post #2

These conclusions seem to spit in the face of "meritocracy". It's always puzzled me that this idea of meritocracy, especially in tech (notably USA), is so pervasive, bleeding into our corporate performance reviews and our pro-diversity efforts ("we hire only according to merit" ). But it is so internally irrational. I'm reminded of this argument: > The case against meritocracy can be put psychologically: (a) The abol…

“ Above all we need to focus on delivering opportunity via improved circumstances and empowerment, irrespective of merit or success: that is the only path to actual equality.” Please consider that you are advocating for communism. I hope you will consider reviewing the histories of China and the USSR, et al. after World War 2. The critique and solution you offer do not lead to “actual equality.”

That’s a ridiculous equivalency. You can provide high quality education to all without USSR style communism. In fact I’d argue the long term success of a capitalist system relies on it.

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#30

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 12:42 PM UTC

iridium_core wrote: post #13

abhinav22 wrote: post #3

For those who want a TL;DR, below is an extract of the summary. I think they did a good job, the article was well written. Poverty traps are one of the most fundamental concepts in development economics. The contri- bution of this paper has been to provide evidence for their existence using the combination of a randomized asset transfer and an 11 year follow up in rural Bangladesh. Our key finding is that people stay…

How much of this is due to over-population? If the population of Bangladesh was 80 million instead of 160 million - giving each person access to theoretically double the amount of resources and land - would the net improvement be greater than 2x? What about 40 million - would the improvement be 4x? The solution may ultimately be a one-child policy, as demonstrated successfully by China.

[deleted]