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

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

#161

Post by dsego » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 2:10 PM UTC

theelous3 wrote: post #20

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…

This is all well and good to argue around a very literal meritocracy, but I don't think anyone actually argues for this. It's not just "lol, 1 - 1 = 0, meritocracy is impossible". The underlying principal, as I understand it, is that it's unreasonable to think for example, that mark zuck literally does millions of time more work than say, a senior software dev at a middle size company, or a farmer. Yet zuck is compen…

Public services in my country (like teacher, police, nurses etc) have salary coefficients (job complexity ratio) depending on qualifications and duties. Not sure what the proper terminology is in english and if it's the same in other countries. There are socialists in Europe supporting the max 1:12 ratio between minimum & maximum income. Although, there is an old saying in my country: "They couldn't pay me so little that I couldn't work even less" (not sure about the rough translation), so that's definitely a danger of such schemes.

Aside from that, I don't really believe in the musks and zucks of the world. Our society shouldn't rely on charismatic leaders, who for all we know could be fronts for the NSA/CIA operations. Shock workers or strike workers could be used to motivate and promote labor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udarnik).

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

#162

Post by itsoktocry » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 2:11 PM UTC

enriquec wrote: post #155

itsoktocry wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who is arguably ensuring the long-term survivability of our species Do adult humans honestly believe that going to Mars is a reasonable way to "save our species"?

Do you have another suggestion? Do you not see any value in developing the technology necessary to get to Mars - in order to travel elsewhere? And to answer your question, yes. Successful, accomplished, professional, adult scientists - like myself and my friends - do honestly believe that.

>Do you have another suggestion?

You could start with investing heavily in this planet, which is significantly more habitable than mars. Electric vehicles were a great start, but there's a lot more than EVs and reselling battery and solar equipment from China that can be done.

>Do you not see any value in developing the technology necessary to get to Mars - in order to travel elsewhere?

I see some value, and if Mr. Musk wants to pursue it, great. But let's not pretend he's saving humanity here; the God complex of SV is already bad enough.

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

#163

Post by bonoboTP » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 2:15 PM UTC

mehphp wrote: post #117

lazyjones wrote: post #76

These conclusions apply to the third world, not the rest of us. Here in Europe for example, anyone can study and become an entrepreneur (I did it, with pretty much 0 wealth in the family).

Does this mean that poverty, in the first world at least, is a solved problem and being poor is a choice for those remaining in poverty?

Depending on what you mean by poverty, mostly yes for Western and Norther Europe if you do not count immigrants, who are in a more special situation.

The unemployment benefit is usually enough to cover material living costs and to have all the basics, like shelter, food in a fridge, electricity, running water, even entertainment like TV, phone, computer.

People have vastly different understandings of poverty and if you define it relative to the median income, you will by definition always have poverty.

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

#164

Post by dsego » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 2:16 PM UTC

lazyjones wrote: post #76

These conclusions apply to the third world, not the rest of us. Here in Europe for example, anyone can study and become an entrepreneur (I did it, with pretty much 0 wealth in the family).

> anyone can study and become an entrepreneur

Let's say I want to become a doctor and not an entrepreneur?

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

#165

Post by taffer » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 2:19 PM UTC

bonoboTP wrote: post #158

MarkMc wrote: post #148

Here's interesting observation by by Nobel prize-winners Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo: "We have already seen, in the previous chapter, another example of people who had lucrative opportunities to save but did not use them: the fruit vendors from Chennai, who borrowed about 1,000 rupees ($45.75 USD PPP) each morning at the rate of 4.69 percent per day. Suppose that the vendors decided to drink two fewer cups of tea…

Two complicating aspects I just randomly thought up: - the money lending business may not like the fact that their clients are becoming self sufficient and may increase the interest rate to punish such attempts - crabs in a bucket phenomenon. Not every culture is like the US. In many places it's considered a bad thing to stick out from your environment, family, neighborhood etc. and in poverty you need the goodwill o…

If the money lending business had the power to unilaterally raise the interest rate, wouldn't it have done so already?

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

#166

Post by PeterisP » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 2:25 PM UTC

sanxiyn wrote: post #55

Dirlewanger wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Heritability and genetic factors are overlapping but distinct things - for example, socioeconomic status influences many aspects, is hereditary but not genetic.

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

#167

Post by ModernMech » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 2:26 PM UTC

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.…

When people say that inequality is a problem in society, they are not saying everyone in society should be equal. They're saying maybe it's not a good state of affairs if 1% of the people own 50% of the wealth.

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

#168

Post by solatic » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #58

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,…

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. Assured…

You should watch the documentary Children of the Sun, which describes attempts by early kibbutz movements in Israel to raise children communally and not directly by their parents. There were upsides (the children grew up with characteristics that we would think of as strong and independent) and downsides (clear early-childhood trauma, with unclear consequences).

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

#169

Post by PeterisP » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 2:33 PM UTC

dsego wrote: post #164

lazyjones wrote: post #76

These conclusions apply to the third world, not the rest of us. Here in Europe for example, anyone can study and become an entrepreneur (I did it, with pretty much 0 wealth in the family).

> anyone can study and become an entrepreneur Let's say I want to become a doctor and not an entrepreneur?

Sure, if you're diligent enough, there's nothing stopping you, there's no wealth barrier - studying medicine is a reasonable option for students from poor families.

Is it not the case in USA? I have read about doctors coming out of med school with lots of debt, but I had presumed that these loans are reasonably available and would not prevent someone from a poor family from studying there.

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

#170

Post by solatic » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 2:34 PM UTC

xwdv wrote: post #52

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,…

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.

Literally the whole premise on which the plot of Inception rests was to convince the child progeny of wealth to forgo it so as to prove that he could make a name for himself on his own merit and not by riding his father's coattails.

There's a very big difference between leaving a child to fend for himself (so to speak) and attempting to help a child develop his own sense of agency, including restricting access to a smaller-than-naturally-limited set of resources.