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

131–140 of 225 posts

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

#131

Post by sul_tasto »

nvarsj wrote: post #29
sul_tasto wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ 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.

In my experience, providing “a high quality education for all” just isn’t possible, because it’s dependent upon what caliber of students are in the classroom. Stipulating an equal distribution of ability levels doesn’t raise all boats, it drags the most capable students down. What I don’t understand is why it’s often considered acceptable to disregard the needs of strong students. Don’t they also have a right to be challenged in the classroom?

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

#132

Post by lotsofpulp »

postingpals wrote: post #91
lotsofpulp wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we have enough resources for the population, How is this calculated? Are there enough resources for 8B people go to Tahiti or equivalent destinations for their honeymoon? Because that’s where the conflict comes in. There might be enough resources to feed everyone some basic meals everyday, but is there enough for everyone to have their own single family detached house with a yard and a couple personal vehicles? Is…

Liveable necessities like water, food, and housing, that are either wasted on inefficient food production methods or given to rent-seekers (by the economic definition of the term). No one is claiming we are post-scarcity and that everyone can have the standard of living of a millionaire, though I would argue that one having a standard of living like this could take away from other people's standard of living. Basical…

I would say the irreversible damage being caused from pollution of what we in the developed world would call “modest” lifestyles shows that we are at a limit, at least if people all over the world are aspiring for the single family detached house with a couple personal vehicles lifestyle.

Basically, I’d like to see what quality of life we would have if resources were distributed evenly. I imagine it wouldn’t be acceptable to most people who are used to their spoiled due to the inequality.

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

#133

Post by augustk »

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.

Exactly, social class is bred in childhood. It's really the children or grandchildren of a given person who can enter a different class.

http://willskinner.com/class.html

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

#134

Post by not_knuth »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #94

Please note that this study is in the context of extreme poverty in populations such as rural villages in Bangladesh. It’s an interesting study and worth reading if you’re interested in what it takes to lift these populations out of poverty. The authors propose that their extreme poverty is a meta-stable state that prevents them from accessing wealth-building opportunities. The authors show that time-limited wealth t…

Agreed.

It would also help to include Bangladesh somewhere in the title, since many people jump straight to the comment section (not saying this is the way to go, but it's the way it is).

Hopefully the OP sees this.

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

#135

Post by Consultant32452 »

not_knuth wrote: post #121
thundergolfer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I am in the same boat as you. While it is very normal for parents to be defensive, I found the comment a bit unnecessarily aggressive without an immenent threat (heck, we're on some comment section on the internet here, not a dome in hunger games battling for survival). But then again, I have not had children of my own, so I can't relate to the need to defend my offspring. And from friends I know that parenting is re…

I'm having a great day. We don't share common morals or goals. I didn't initiate the violent language, I only responded in kind.

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

#136

Post by anothernewdude »

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.…

That's really irrelevant. Inequality is the bad thing. Less of it please.

Hierarchy? In so far as it currently exists, who cares?

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

#137

Post by anothernewdude »

enriquec wrote: post #109
stuaxo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Because he's as much of a nutcase as you are.

> 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?

Because the "value" they have proven is so often criminal and fraudulent in nature - best case scenario it's down to luck. The world is not even close to the meritocracy you think it is.

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

#138

Post by xwdv »

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…

Because there is a bias that cannot be shaken. Look its easy to not give a shit about other peoples kids. Let other people's dirty nasty misbehaved little shits get nothing free in this world. When it's their own children though, people begin to apply exceptions. And that's why we end up with hereditary based transfers of wealth, rather than say donating all your money to all of society upon death. Your own child that you raised from birth deserves your wealth more than the wretched society (basically other people's kids).

If someone else's child was run over and killed in a road, a person may pause to reflect on how sad and unfortunate the event was, but will quickly move on with their life and continue as they were. If their own child though was run over and killed though, they would be shattered, may not even be able to function well for quite some time.

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

#139

Post by UncleMeat »

enriquec wrote: post #109
stuaxo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Is Elon Musk doing that? Or the engineers who work for him?

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

#140

Post by Consultant32452 »

afuchs wrote: post #110
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.

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 inher…

You're literally threatening violence against me in this post and you're confused as to why I would respond in kind. I don't think I can help you.
Post reply on HN