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

Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

lse.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 225 posts

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

#31

Post by Dumbdo »

sul_tasto wrote: post #21
solatic wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Interesting strawman. There are a lot of other ways to control inheritance than separating children from their parents.

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

#32

Post by [deleted] »

fartcannon wrote: post #15
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…

So, how do you decide who gets the rewards? Assuming not everyone can have every job/house/life. Do you tell the people who get the rewards that they were given a chance at random (compared to their neighbor who was not) or do you let them believe they earned it? For the record, I agree that merit is a bad system. Im curious to explore the ramifications of doing away with the system and how it would be different, if…

[deleted]

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

#33

Post by refurb »

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,…

Do you have any sources on what percentage of wealthy that inherit their wealth? From what I've gathered it's quite small and doesn't necessarily last more than a few generations.

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

#35

Post by postingpals »

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.”

This is a logical leap i'm afraid. We have been trying to give people what they need using government welfare for a century now. It's not communism to correctly understand that some people need to be given opportunities to prove themselves in the market regardless of their race, wealth, etc.

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

#36

Post by II2II »

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,…

Distributing rewards according to merit may be beneficial, but the problems with unequal distribution go far beyond hereditary rewards. Consider the income distribution according to jobs. Some jobs are assigned greater monetary rewards than others even if they are essential to the functioning of society. Much of that comes from our notions of status. I would argue that distributing wealth according to merit only works as a motivating factor when one is being compared to their occupational peers, which is something rarely seen in lower income occupations.

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

#37

Post by refurb »

buran77 wrote: post #25
refurb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 no…

You don't think things like access to education, medical care, clean water, nutritious food, vaccinations, quality public schools, subsidized colleges, rule of law, minimal corruption, limited impact of religious identify, avaiable reliable housing might have an impact on the outcomes?

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

#38

Post by Consultant32452 »

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,…

Practically the only reason I accumulate any resources or am productive at all is for the benefit of my child. I wouldn't think twice about committing violence against anyone who tried to stop me.

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

#39

Post by dexterdog »

Dumbdo wrote: post #31
sul_tasto wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that we separate children from their parents?

Interesting strawman. There are a lot of other ways to control inheritance than separating children from their parents.

Name one way that does not involve theft of property.

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

#40

Post by learnstats2 »

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,…

> Unequal distribution of rewards (i.e. according to merit) is fine and desirable (as a motivating force).

This assumption sounds nice but isn't backed by psychology research. Extrinsic rewards can motivate and demotivate - and in general contribute to anxiety.

Post reply on HN