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

51–60 of 225 posts

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

#51

Post by Dirlewanger »

sanxiyn wrote: post #27
AsyncAwait wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is "being smart" a genetic lottery? Are you serious? That brings up all sorts of implications with race and whatnot. "Being smart" is often a proxy for the things the GP mentions: strong stable family, access to good schooling, and a sprinkle of luck.

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

#52

Post by xwdv »

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 natural to pass resources onto your children. You can’t expect people to just see their children as individuals who must go fend for themselves. A stranger might just regard your children as mere “people”, but a parent see’s their children as extensions of themselves, and have a vested interest in ensuring their happiness and well-being.

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

#53

Post by shams93 »

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,…

Then add in a tax system which aggressively taxes labor while leaving capital and inheritance untaxed, if we stopped taxing labor that might be enough to pull a whole chunk of labor out of poverty, just having work is no escape from poverty in a world of high rent and high income tax.

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

#54

Post by sanxiyn »

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…

The paper identifies one threshold at ~500 USD. That is, in Bangladesh, those with more than 500 USD assets tend to accumulate more assets, while those with less than 500 USD assets don't.

As people in Silicon Valley have more than 500 USD assets (citation needed), I don't see how this paper applies to Silicon Valley at all. There can be another such threshold, but the paper doesn't provide any experimental support for one.

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

#55

Post by sanxiyn »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #51
sanxiyn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is "being smart" a genetic lottery? Are you serious? That brings up all sorts of implications with race and whatnot. "Being smart" is often a proxy for the things the GP mentions: strong stable family, access to good schooling, and a sprinkle of luck.

Heritability of IQ is >50%, and IQ is a good measure of smartness.

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

#56

Post by lotsofpulp »

II2II wrote: post #36
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,…

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 work…

> 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.

It does not. It comes from supply and demand, and how important that job is to the cash flow that will end up paying for it.

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

#57

Post by inglor_cz »

postingpals wrote: post #18
iridium_core wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

China's policy wasn't all that successful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_women_of_China Population control is a very outdated idea, we have enough resources for the population, we just don't know how to distribute them using free market models.

"we have enough resources for the population, we just don't know how to distribute them using free market models. "

That strikes me as improbable. Globally, you might be right - there is, for example, enough fresh water on the planet for many more people than are alie today.

But moving a lake from thinly populated Canadian wilderness to Niger or Burkina Faso, where the needy populations are, is not technically possible.

And vice versa, Sahara would be a perfect place to generate solar electricity, but the North European populations that would gladly consume it in the winter are too far away.

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

#58

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

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,…

Which is culturally solvable, but would require require people to give up their children to be raised by the state and never be allowed to know who they are. That sounds horrible, but I submit that said horror is largely driven largely by a culture of possession and selfishness, i.e. people want to raise their own children because they want to shape who they are and ensure their genes have good survival odds. Assuredly there is a biological component that drives us to take an interest in our lineage, but we know that this can be directed towards similar goals via adoption and pets, so it is conceivable that a society could direct it not towards one's individual children but children in general. Of course, the whole 'raised by the state' thing is also a pretty uncomfortable thought to any society that has enshrined "freedom" and most people who lived through the soviet union, however I think it is possible that without the concept of genetically-bound inheritance of property and status that the corruption of such structures might be less likely.

Not that I suggest any of this in serious mind you, it's just the kind of thought experiment day-dream that gets me through my workday. What this one has taught me is this: nobody actually wants a meritocracy.

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

#59

Post by sdfin »

postingpals wrote: post #12
sul_tasto wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only there was some person or some group to realign society and correctly place everyone according to ability.

For those that are inevitably about to argue and downvote the above... It seems the economy is returning, smartly, towards keynesian models because we've seen first hand how destructive the past 50 years of austerity and free market economics has become. Its clear to me that we need to have a strong government to save the economy from market failures, including but not limited to job guarantees echoing those of the n…

Since central banks were created, there was no more a fully free market. (this video explains it, subtitles recommmended https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lljmiLNoEtw )

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

#60

Post by redis_mlc »

refurb wrote: post #33
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,…

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.

In Europe, most of the wealthy are descendants from 400 years ago. There's a paper that comes up in the US media regularly.

What's fascinating is that most of the German name-brand companies that thrived under the Nazis are still owned by the same families.

Post reply on HN