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

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

#101

Post by PragmaticPulp » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:18 PM UTC

st1x7 wrote: post #90

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.

The conclusion of this study is that people above a certain wealth threshold are able to accumulate wealth while those below a certain wealth threshold cannot.

The authors argue that sufficiently large, time-limited assistance to these people can bump them over the threshold to where they can start accumulating wealth.

Note that this study was about rural villagers in Bangladesh and other such extremely impoverished populations, so stretching the conclusions to middle class people in the US is an extreme abuse of the study conclusions. However, it’s not hard to imagine that giving similar time-limited boosts to people such as funding free public college opportunities could help more people achieve the middle-class stability noted above.

However, it’s clearly not entirely a matter of external intervention. Some of the life choices require active participation of the people involved, such as choosing to delay having children (in conjunction with good access to birth control and reproductive education) and choosing to engage in the educational opportunities available to them.

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

#102

Post by bluesign » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:19 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."

This is not true, because when you don't have hereditary nature of wealth, there is no wealth. Why would you be motivated to accumulate wealth?

Economically you want people to save money and invest, when there is no target to have wealth, people will over spend.

Spending means economically staying at same level as population, not improving.

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

#103

Post by bonoboTP » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:19 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…

It's not just about "rewarding", or giving out high paying position to who we want to.

There are real and difficult things to do in the world that some other people need. They (employers, clients, customers) decide that this work is so important to them that they exchange money for it.

Then the person can use that earned money to improve their life.

For example if a top surgeon flies to a different country to do a difficult operation, I'd want them to be able to enjoy a relaxing VIP lounge, bigger legroom and direct taxi. Rather than flying low cost and standing in the bus for 3 times longer than the taxi ride.

We want to allocate resources to people who accomplish important things for us. Not just as reward or motivation, but in our own interest, we invest in the most capable and competent to have more of our stuff taken care of.

Jobs aren't just about sitting in a chair and taking cash and we just pick who gets to sit in which chair to enjoy that cash. It's doing things. And we want those things to be done well.

This is the idea behind meritocracy. Not that we praise people for their genetics.

I'm not saying this is how it works currently, just that this is what we mean by meritocracy that we should move toward.

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

#104

Post by sokoloff » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:19 PM UTC

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.

Their parents likely spent effort (in assortive mating, proper nutrition, early stimulative interactions, etc.)

You could call placing 99 green balls and 1 red ball into a bin and picking out 2 green balls a “lottery”, I suppose.

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

#105

Post by mehphp » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:20 PM UTC

waihtis wrote: post #78

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…

Why is absolute equality a more desirable state than the merit-based system now in place?

I'm not suggesting we should have absolute equality but is system we have in place really merit-based?

Last I checked, about a fourth of millionaires inherited their wealth and the vast majority had the opportunity to become wealthy due to factors completely out of their control (where they were born, to whom they were born and natural cognitive abilities).

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

#106

Post by bluesign » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:20 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #38

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,…

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.

I am exactly in the same boat with you, even if I don't have children yet.

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

#107

Post by at_a_remove » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:21 PM UTC

tremon wrote: post #92

xwdv wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can’t expect people to just see their children as individuals who must go fend for themselves Why not? There's plenty of people arguing for exactly that mechanism when it's not about their own children. A 100% inheritance tax (with no loopholes through business or legal constructs) might force a lot of people to rethink how they vote -- because then, they can't use their wealth to shield their children from how s…

Basic r/K selection. We're a K-selection species: we have a few offspring and we invest our resources in them quite heavily, like most mammals, and the higher the mammal, the bigger the investiture.

As such, your suggestion is quite literally against human nature. We're not insects. This is the usual trap for people with Big Ideologies: they assume that we're all these tabula rasa entities onto which anything might be written (and should be).

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

#108

Post by postingpals » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:21 PM UTC

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…

This is a lot of odd, complex moral statements used to denounce a comparatively simple and separate idea, that wealth should be distributed somewhat more fairly. Inequality is going to persist in other areas and probably even in financial areas, but that doesn't make taxes robbery.

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

#109

Post by enriquec » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:21 PM UTC

stuaxo wrote: post #65

orange_tee wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> 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. This sounds like a bit of a stretch. Let's try and make people a bit more e…

Why limit Elon Musk - who is arguably ensuring the long-term survivability of our species - for some arbitrary target like absolute equality? Why is a powerful bureaucrat with no money more desirable to you than a rich entrepreneur that had to prove his value before attaining reward? What is wrong with the youth have little-to-no savings and the elderly/about-to-retire having significant wealth and assets?

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

#110

Post by afuchs » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:21 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #38

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,…

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.

Why immediately jump to such a conclusion?

The paper being discussed talks about there being a threshold under which someone might be in a poverty trap. Would simple subsidies and programs to support children's economic future suffice, such as some of the policies advocated for by American progressives?

(Of course, this would require taxes or some other source of funding, but doesn't require confiscation of all inherited wealth)