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

81–90 of 225 posts

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

#81

Post by bmcn2020 »

travisoneill1 wrote: post #43

> We find that in the absence of credit constraints only 2% of households would be best off doing wage labor, while 97% of households are exclusively reliant such work at baseline. Conversely, only 1% work in livestock when 90% would do so if they had access to the same asset wealth as the middle and upper classes. Overall, this implies that 96% of households are forced to misallocate their labor. So the authors sugg…

I don't think that's what it said. It's not a recommendation, just a summary: 1% do it now, but 90% would do it if they had the chance.

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

#82

Post by jahaja »

orange_tee wrote: post #24
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.…

Your so focused on your own take on human nature that you ignore obvious evidence disproving it, namely that Scandinavia isn't a hell hole.

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

#83

Post by secondcoming »

thundergolfer wrote: post #64
Consultant32452 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With the words you’ve used, you sound threatening and extreme. What do you mean by someone trying to stop you “accumulating resources” for your child?

There's nothing 'extreme' about GP's sentiment. It's called being a good parent.

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

#84

Post by postingpals »

inglor_cz wrote: post #57
postingpals wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 possib…

It's a big topic to get into, but what I really mean is there are certain resources that we either throw away or don't distribute that wouldn't require relocation, and could be given to people without needing to police them for having kids or whatever. Do you not think Nigeria and Bangladesh have this problem as well? It's not just the developed world. Underdeveloped countries have resource allocation problems and definitely have excess resources in some cases.

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

#85

Post by anemoiac »

orange_tee wrote: post #24
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.…

Hierarchy is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. We can reduce levels of inequality without producing the negative outcomes you fear.

I’m not sure whether this applies to you (I’m not implying that it does), but I continually find it interesting to hear Americans expressing the fear that acting to reduce inequality will somehow limit social mobility, as if they don’t realize that much of the developed world has greater social mobility than their country (or that many countries also rate higher in measures of social welfare, despite having greater social mobility and lower inequality).

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

#86

Post by Consultant32452 »

absolutelyrad wrote: post #62
Consultant32452 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. And people who want wealth inequalities to fade away, can they explain people who have better looks due to better genetics. Then they carry for their next generations. Maybe also force attractive people to mate with less attractive ones so these inequalities also go away? Sounds insane doesn't it? This is equally insane idea. This is just unfair to everyone. It is wrong, immoral, unethical to tax the wealth…

They imagine if the system were upended they wouldn't be low status. They are wrong.

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

#87

Post by tremon »

sdfin wrote: post #44
II2II wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you sure? I believe that rather than notions of status the main factor that determines salaries is supply and demand of workers.

How many nurses have seen their salary increase due to the shortage of nursing staff due to Covid?

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

#88

Post by dcolkitt »

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)

Just to be clear this paper’s about peasants in Bangladesh.

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

#89

Post by oytis »

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…

> "we hire only according to merit"

What you would consider a better policy? Hiring according to a fair dice roll?

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

#90

Post by st1x7 »

ransom1538 wrote: post #72

In the US: "graduate from high school; get a full-time job; don’t have a child before age 21 and get married before childbearing", this gives you %75 chance of being middle class, about %89 chance of not being poor. This isn't good enough, but seems possible! https://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9027195/haskins-sawhill-norms-...

> this gives you %75 chance of being middle class, about %90 chance of not being poor

It doesn't. Those numbers are descriptive, not prescriptive. You're basically giving the advice to be more middle-class in order to be more middle-class.

Post reply on HN