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

201–210 of 225 posts

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

#201

Post by xwdv »

solatic wrote: post #170
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. 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…

"Making a name for yourself" is overrated. No one really gives a fuck. And you can still make a name for yourself with any amount of resources anyway, probably even easier to do when you already start with a lot of wealth.

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

#202

Post by dang »

sul_tasto wrote: post #21
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,…

Are you suggesting that we separate children from their parents?

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#203

Post by ModernMech »

jules wrote: post #124
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.…

Economic inequality within a developed nation is one of the least important kinds of inequality. I'd trade one standard deviation of income for one standard deviation of pretty much anything else, such as intelligence or attractiveness. The average person in a developed nation lives better than the kings and emperors of the past in material terms. They had a bigger dwelling, but I'd much rather live in a modern apart…

The standard of living in these developed nations is due to exploitation that is outsourced to other nations. For example, regarding that $1200 cell phone? This is on the front page right now: https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/29/iphone-workers-forced-labor/

Those bananas? Well you can thank children in Ecuador for those: https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/04/24/ecuador-widespread-labor...

We have the best medical care, but results are uneven. If you are so poor that you are rationing your medicine to the point it doesn't work, what does it matter how good it is?

Was the food the king ate really worse? Today's poor eat sugar disguised as "food" that leads to obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. You can say what you want about medieval diets but at least they didn't have an obesity epidemic. I'm not sure who is better off.

At any rate, even if what you say is 100% true, that doesn't really change the fact that homelessness, hunger, and poverty are solvable problems today. To say that things were worse before and therefore the moral failings of society today are tolerable is just baffling to me.

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

#204

Post by curryst »

jasonclaid wrote: post #145
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.…

It is not the existence of hierarchy that is the problem. It is the type of hierarchy and the effects of that hierarchy. The parent and the study argue that we should give greater resources to those with the least resources in such a way as to broaden access to opportunities. You can argue that is not worth the expense (it costs X to produce Y outcome and redistributing X would lead to negative impact Z. Y + Z result…

> “Inequality inevitable” sidesteps that and asks that we just give up before even trying or imagining different possibilities because we’ve failed in the past. It is hard to not see such arguments as a misguided effort to rationalize one’s self interest.

I don't agree with this. I tend to agree that inequality is inevitable, but where I think I disagree with you is on the definition of equality.

If we create an even playing field in the environment, then we've just shifted the goalposts from "How wealthy were your parents?" To "How good are your genetics?". Some people will be born smarter than others, and excel. Some people will be born with learning disabilities and relegated to the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Judging based on innate ability also means discriminating against people who innately lack that ability. If you were born dyslexic, you're going to have to work twice as hard to achieve as much. The dyslexia is as innate as IQ advantages.

I just don't see a way that hierarchies aren't inherently unequal. You're always judging who has more of a particular thing, so people with less of that thing are worse off. Right now, that's largely money. Is using the genetic lottery a more equal means of doing this? I don't really think so.

I would rather focus on reducing the difference in lifestyle between the haves and have nots. If we can't stop inequality, we can at least lessen the effects.

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

#205

Post by 908B64B197 »

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…

If there's someone with "Diversity Manager" anywhere near hiring at a company it means it has deep issues.

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

#206

Post by ModernMech »

sul_tasto wrote: post #123
postingpals wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a logical leap i'm afraid. We have been trying to give people what they need using government welfare for a century now. It's not communism to correctly understand that some people need to be given opportunities to prove themselves in the market regardless of their race, wealth, etc.

I understand what you’re saying, and technically you’re correct. However, the quote I referenced is typical of the coded language being used to justify and advocate for much more extreme policies of redistribution that I’m not convinced many would agree with.

What you call "redistribution" is what others would call "returning stolen wealth to those who created it". The people who use what you refer to as "coded language" believe that as laborers, they create wealth which is stolen by those who don't labor but instead merely own assets. They believe that wealth and value are created through labor, not by ownership, and therefore labor deserve a larger portion of the wealth than they are getting right now. Therefore it's not "redistribution" of wealth at all, as those who currently hold this wealth had no right to it in the first place.

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

#207

Post by ModernMech »

sul_tasto wrote: post #131
nvarsj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

In my experience education has been defunded for decades while wealth inequality has been exacerbated. One only has to look at the fact that the inheritance tax is indexed to inflation, while the minimum wage and teacher expense deduction aren't to understand where our national priorities are. I'm not willing to say "a high quality education for all just isn’t possible" until we've invested equivalent resources into education as waging war. Imagine if our education budget was $700 billion annually. What could be possible?

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

#208

Post by jules »

jayski wrote: post #178
jules wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economic inequality within a developed nation is one of the least important kinds of inequality. I'd trade one standard deviation of income for one standard deviation of pretty much anything else, such as intelligence or attractiveness. The average person in a developed nation lives better than the kings and emperors of the past in material terms. They had a bigger dwelling, but I'd much rather live in a modern apart…

sexual/romantic partners though. if youre living in a shitty apt with a 200 dollar phone, good luck getting interest from potential partners. whereas the king was swimming in booty, and at the end of it all, that's what moves most of us mostly. id argue few ppl really want a lambo for the engineering of it as a machine, they just want to be seen riding in it. 500 years ago a lambo was a fancy horse drawn carriage.

You're right, the king probably had more booty. Remember though that the king's wealth is many standard deviations above average, so we have to compare him to somebody who is many standard deviations more attractive than average.

In the modern world, one standard deviation of physical attractiveness matters way more for attracting sexual/romantic partners than does one standard deviation of wealth, especially so for genuine attraction.

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

#209

Post by lazyjones »

dsego wrote: post #181
lazyjones wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A doctor can be an entrepreneur too. After studying, you can opt to work in a clinic or start your own business. The latter is usually the faster path to wealth.

Let's say that you are a homeless 40-yearold, where can you study and start a medical career?

In Austria you could if you graduated from secondary education. But since you aren't born a 40-year old homeless person, I'll have to question that person's life choices and missed opportunities.

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

#210

Post by jayski »

jules wrote: post #208
jayski wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sexual/romantic partners though. if youre living in a shitty apt with a 200 dollar phone, good luck getting interest from potential partners. whereas the king was swimming in booty, and at the end of it all, that's what moves most of us mostly. id argue few ppl really want a lambo for the engineering of it as a machine, they just want to be seen riding in it. 500 years ago a lambo was a fancy horse drawn carriage.

You're right, the king probably had more booty. Remember though that the king's wealth is many standard deviations above average, so we have to compare him to somebody who is many standard deviations more attractive than average. In the modern world, one standard deviation of physical attractiveness matters way more for attracting sexual/romantic partners than does one standard deviation of wealth, especially so for…

i agree with this.
Post reply on HN